Re: ARMv4-support in armel/squeeze?
* Wookey (firstname.lastname@example.org) [101221 00:43]:
> Using a virtual architecture of 'bootstrap' to annotate the build-deps
> is neat. It deals with the issue of repeating the build-deps in
> Buildd-depends-StageN as sugested in the URLs below. However it does
> limit you to only one 'build stage'. i.e there is the normal build and
> there is the bootstrap build. You cannot have 3 stages of build.
You could have multiple stages. It is possible that a package A,
build-recommending B and C, generates more binary packages (or a
better working user interface) if B is there than if both packages are
It doesn't however help to compute a graph of "best order" for
rebuilding, but you just have to trigger a binNMU if there are more
build-recommended packages available.
The question is also if we accept all these limitations as sane for
1. some binary packages might be not built
2. documentation might be missing
3. user interface might restricted (e.g. a package might be compiled
1. and 2. seems fairly obvious to me, but question is if we accept the
third limitation (for me, it sounds ok, as long as the limitation
doesn't make other packages FTBFS).