> - - -=-=-=-=-=- 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 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Rationale: 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