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

Re: Apt-get repositories: the remaining way to www.debian.org

On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 01:44:04PM +0100, Xavier de Labouret wrote:
> Hi,
> A few weeks have passed since my first post in this list, and, as a
> simple user, i can measure how much progress has been made on
> debian-Netbsd.
> My install test results began with "impossible to pass the nth install
> step" and are now at the "can you fix this XFree bug on the default
> installation?" status. 
> If there is anything i can say, it is thank you guys for this work.
> So, as a simple user, i am wondering if time has come to merge the two
> Debian/NetBSD apt-get repositories. The fact that my bug reports on IRC
> concern more high-level packages lets me think that this time is near. 

Possible, yes; there are some practical issues in doing so that might be
better resolved in a different way, though. (Which kernel version, include
files, libc, etc, are used to build, for example).

And the fact that I still haven't found a good way to make dupload or
dput cope with a server that isn't FTPable (firewall reasons) or SSHable
(because it's my private server, not a Debian one, and I'm hesitant to give
out accounts).

> But if anything went as easily as end-users think, life would be probably
> too easy :).
> Matthew, Joel, can you see remaining blocking steps for this merge? And,
> from where we are, what do we still need to have an official
> Debian/NetBSD repository on www.debian.org? 

See above, for merging them. As for an official one - which is, IMO,
probably a better answer, in the long run - it requires dpkg and katie to
know what we are. Which requires autotools-dev (and some other things) to
be able to identify properly. The dpkg crew have promised that they *will*
support us; my patches for it currently depend, mostly, on autotools-dev
updating. I haven't talked to James about katie, yet, but on other things
he supports he has taken the policy "once dpkg supports it, I'll accept
patches". We did discuss it during my DAM phase phone call, though, so he
knows it's coming up.

Given that upstream is currently incorporating the autotools updates,
and as such, our local autotools-dev should have them (either as a local
patch, or a new upstream version) in the near future... I'm inclined to
try to go the "right" way, with a real archive. Doing so, however, means
that we'd need to coordinate the uploads to it, and start being very, very
pedantic about what we can send to it (since the uploads would, in effect,
be binary/port NMUs, and subject to all the rules thereof).

The netbsd-libc (aka libc12) package is probably uploadable, though
it would immediately gain at least one bug (since we don't yet have
a standard kernel-image/kernel-headers set, and it build-depends on
kernel-headers-1.6), but it would be enough to get started. GCC 3.2 also
needs a few more minor tweaks, but the GCC maintainers have been very
responsive, to date, in incorporating patches for us.

It certainly would be nice to have the various Arch: all packages available
in a sane repository, though. :)
Joel Baker                           System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com              http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/

Attachment: pgpnvcfbvq8aB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: