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

Re: d-i and the archive

Sebastian Ley wrote:
> Am Di, den 30.09.2003 schrieb Joey Hess um 18:24:
> > What's the advantage of a -src package instead of a source package?
> Hm, good question... What will the buildds do with non .deb packages? I
> had in mind to to something similar like the debian-cd package...
> Perhaps you can elaborate a bit on this topic?

It's possible to have source-only packages in the archive (like pine
used to be), but I assume the buildds would ignore them without at least
a special hack. That's a good point.

> > Aside from that and from agreeing with Gaudenz that this may be a more
> > medium-term solution, I agree that your idea is reasonable.
> Yep, but since it'll take time to set everything uo we better start now
> than tomorrow ;-) Until the process is kicked off, we should of course
> have an alternative, like regular beta releases for example.

I'm with you.

> >  However, this doesn't address autobuilding or getting boot images into
> >  the archive.
> Indeed. But it is a prerequisite to autobuilding images. I believe we
> need a separate autobuilding process, which rebuilds images whenever a
> udeb of the initial boot-image gets updated.

Aside from a hack like uploading a new version of the package every day,
it'd seem we do need something like that. If we're going to need such a
change I guess it could just as easily use a source(-only) package as a
binary package. I don't know which is better, though, my only preference
is that if we use a binary package it not be named with -src, and not
use /usr/src, since it will include little or no real "source". It could
go in /usr/share and even provide a build-d-i program in /usr/bin.

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: