Re: debian/m68k's future
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Stephen R Marenka <email@example.com> wrote:
> So you may have noticed the following in your buildd logs for python-
> depending packages.
> | dpkg: regarding .../python-docutils_0.5-3_all.deb containing python-docutils:
> | package uses Breaks; not supported in this dpkg
> | dpkg: error processing /srv/chroot/sid/var/cache/apt/archives/python-docutils_0.
> | +5-3_all.deb (--unpack):
> | unsupported dependency problem - not installing python-docutils
> That's right, our old etch-m68k dpkg doesn't support Breaks.
> The options I can think of are.
> Option 1: backport dpkg to etch-m68k
> Yuck. etch-m68k is old and likely insecure. Who knows what
> back-porting dpkg would look like.
We'd also have to touch APT and a few other packages I suspect to do
this. Great potential to hosing everyone :-/
> Option 2: lenny-lite
> Build lenny with base, build-essential, and buildd-required
> packages. I can probably do this one myself if there's
> interest. I'll probably include anything required for d-i
Probably the sanest option, most of the base packages should simply
build and allow a successful debootstrapping.
> Option 3: lenny
> Go ahead and try to do a lenny release. I think we have
> nearly all the binary packages, but how to shove them into
> an archive intelligently? I'm willing to help if anyone
> knows how and can direct or is otherwise willing to lead.
Binary packages: Yes
Matching versions: Not really
I'd love to see a m68k lenny release however ...
> Option 4: throw in the towel
> Say it's time to retire m68k on debian. We have an ancient
> glibc with borked threads. gcc-4.3 is fairly broken. A
> number of packages need some bugs fixed, others need some
> porting. Not so many helpers these days. Funny thing is with
> aranym we have plenty of horsepower (although we need to fix
> the fpu emulation) and with d-ports our buildds won't get
> locked out of wanna-build. Kernel's probably in the best
> shape it's been in a long time.
> Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right!
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----