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

Re: Bug#367709: Call for vote: gcc: requesting libstdc++.udeb

> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> [ 3 ] Choice 1: a libstdc++ udeb should be created as per bug #367709
> [ 1 ] Choice 2: a libstdc++ udeb should not be created despite bug #367709
> [ 2 ] Choice 3: Further discussion
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


In addition to the question of whether the gcc maintainer wishes to support
the requested udeb packages, there are technical consequences of adding
these udebs:

- The only section of the archive to which udebs can currently be uploaded
  is the debian-installer section.  Any udeb packages uploaded to this
  section will therefore be visible to the debian-installer tools whether or
  not they are used in the installer, and must be special-cased at various
  points to avoid impacting the installer.  This is contrary to the wishes
  of the debian-installer team; and this bug does not include a concrete
  proposal for creating a new archive section for non-installer udebs which
  we could ask the ftpmaster team to comment on.
- The current handling of udebs as regards testing propagation is known to
  be suboptimal.  Adding a udeb package to any source package means that for
  the foreseeable future, any updates to that package need manual handling
  by the release team in order to reach testing, and as a result imposes an
  additional constraint on the package maintainer in terms of uploads.

So yes, I don't believe overriding the maintainer is an appropriate course
of action here.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: