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
kernel.
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.
Bdale
--
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: