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