Re: ARMv4-support in armel/squeeze?

[Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>]

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010, Andreas Barth wrote:
> The question is also if we accept all these limitations as sane for
> bootstraping:
> 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
> without readline)
> 
> 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).

 Yes; it's really the key problem in bootstrapping; I would think that
 an acceptable compromise is if an intermediate stage of a source
 package provides only a subset of the binary packages, or perhaps a
 different set of binary packages.

 For instance, if src:foo usually produces libfoo, libfoo-dev and
 python-foo, it would be ok to provide only libfoo and libfoo-dev as
 part of the first stage iif the first stage libfoo doesn't break any
 package.

 If libfoo is built with different flags in the first stage and that
 breaks any rdeps (or rbdeps), then the first stage should provide a
 different package name e.g. libfoo-stage1, or libfoo-noreadline and
 relevant rdeps/rbdeps should be adapted to cope with this.
   In this way, we reduce the interface (dependencies) between packages
 to the package name alone and we don't need to check whether the
 package has a particular feature or was built in a particular stage.

-- 
Loïc Minier