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

Re: Patch for smail

On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 12:43:15PM +0100, Loic Prylli wrote:


>  > "second-class citizen"....
> I think we cannot underestimate some technical issues, uploading new
> source for an arch can introduce problems for another, which will need
> a new upload, and this can creates long delays (if not an endless loop).
> IMHO, we are to the point where we should not need to rebuilt a
> package for every arch,  because of a bug fix relevant to only one
> (of course to be fair, this principle should apply to i386 also). 
> What may be done fo instance is :
> - tolerate (or maybe enforce) that some arch have a binary package not
> corresponding to the latest source in slink, if latest slink source has
> a debian revision with 3 digit (the last digit means the last changes
> was more or less arch-specific, or it was a 64bit issue).
> Alternatively we could tolerate that an arch has some binary package
> in slink from the source in potato, but that would be very awkward.

The final result is the patch in BTS and no fixed source. I "spoke" to Brian
and he understood the problem, but tries to minimize the code changes at this
point. So maybe there should be some location in the archive where you can
upload these architecture patches. The BTS does not seem the right place to
me (not for people who want to build from source themselves). This is handy
for the time between a patched version and the time a developer actualy
releasing a version with this patch. (I think also about the difficult
packages like XFree86 or libc6 where on all different platform patches are


B. Warmerdam                                              GNU/Debian Linux
bartw@xs4all.nl, bartw@debian.org (Keyid: 10A0FDD1)       ----------------

Reply to: