Re: Word of Emdebian at LinuxWorld Exp (London) ?
On Thu Oct 30, 2003 at 10:45:53AM -0800, David Schleef wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 06:20:52PM +0000, Wookey wrote:
> > +++ Mark Brown [03-10-29 22:51 +0000]:
> > > For the benefit of those of us who weren't there what were the problems
> > > with using udebs for this? At first glance it seems that for many
> > > packages they ought to be able to do the job and they're already there
> > > and being built.
> > Good question - as you say it seems superficially like a sensible idea.
> > The fundamental problem, at described by the resident FTP-master, (IIRC) was
> > that udebs are simply 'non-policy conformant packages' and they don't want
> > more of them than are absolutely necessary. Ultimately, hundreds of udebs is
> > not something the ftp masters are going to accept. We should be making
> > proper debs but to a consistent 'emdebian' policy (which says you can
> > miss out the docs, for example).
> There's another fundamental problem, which is that packages built
> against uClibc really need to be built against a complete uClibc
> environment. Cross-compiling uClibc packages (i386-glibc ->
> i386-uclibc) works sometimes, but has most of the general cross
> compiling issues.
(btw Hi Dave -- took a year or so longer than originally
planned, huh? ;-)
Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--