[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Package maintenance ideas

In article <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.96.970912150159.6306A-100000@beezer.med.miami.edu> you wrote:
: Not only that, but the
: patches that Mr. Smith did to fix the bug are glibc and Alpha
: "incompatible" and need further work.  Thus is born the "rats nest". 

Hey guys, don't forget, *every* platform will be using libc6, aka glibc, at
the Debian 2.0 release mark.  The *only* patch issues that might bite us this
way are Alpha-specific patches.  In most cases, the things I've run in to 
aren't Alpha-specific, but rather either libc6-related, or due to assumptions
about ints and pointers being the same size.  I would expect Alpha-only 
conditionals to need to show up in only a very few system utilities, and the 

Please be *very* careful to distinguish between libc6 issues, 64-bit issues,
and truly Alpha-specific issues...  otherwise we're just making more work for
everyone involved!

: As you can see, alot of thought went into this.  I would say that the last
: point is a tough one for a newly Debianised package, but I'm sure it
: wouldn't take long to pick up maintainers from other architectures after
: awhile.

It'd be even easier to identify a set of build machines, one per architecture,
and set up a semi-automated build process.  Imagine a package release by an
i386-only maintainer automatically triggering builds of the package on other
architectures, with build failures generating bug reports against the package.
That and a list of platform-issue gurus to go to for platform-specific help,
and we'd be on the road to nirvana...  :-)

I, too, have spent a lot of time thinking about these things... I just haven't
run in to enough speed-bumps yet to force me to action on any of them.


TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-alpha-request@lists.debian.org . Trouble? 
e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Reply to: