Re: RFC: ITP(?) busybox and mklibs.sh as seperate packages
On Wed Oct 11, 2000 at 08:13:37AM +0800, zw@zhaoway.com wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Please give me your advice if packaging busybox and mklibs.sh as seperate
> packages is a good idea or not. Thanks!
>
> This comes to my mind because:
>
> 1) Seems boot-floppies won't like to come into woody (c.f. Adam)
> 2) Packages like mkinitrd-cd depends on boot-floppies solely for these two
> utilities.
>
> If it's a good idea ;-) I'd like to package 'em but I will need some further
> help! ;-) I'm currently in NM queue, I suppose. ;-)
The main BusyBox source tree currently lives outside of the boot floppies.
BusyBox has been packaged and is ready for inclusion into woody; however, woody
is not yet ready for it. Woody needs a new Debian archive section for
"installer" packages which do not need to be fully compilant with policy. The
busybox package was rejected when I uploaded it since it does not comply with
policy (it makes little sense to include docs and manapages for a package that
is only used for the installer).
Joey Hess is trying to get the new "installer" section into the archive, at
which time a number of new installer packages will be uploaded...
-Erik
--
Erik B. Andersen email: andersee@debian.org
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
Reply to: