Re: Sources vs Packages files

[Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net>]

[ Sorry, I'm moving and thus completly out of the loop and devoid of
context on this thread. ]

Glenn McGrath wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Can I conclude that you agree with me that there should be either also be
> > a seperate source repository (in fact, a different "distribution" tree for
> > the installer), or alternatively a change in policy to allow the udebs in
> > the main archive?

Actually, the udebs _are_ in the main archive (in the pool). Policy doesn't
really enter into it, the way we structured things. It's even possible
(but insane) to set up apt lines that let you pull in udebs.

> > Either solution would be fine for me. But it would be important to have a
> > decision rather sooner than later, as either this or a work around is needed
> > to make the autobuilder pick the udebs binaries up (at least for turtle).

AFAIK, autobuilders have been automatically picking up udebs and
building them for a while now.

majoeyh@auric:~>madison anna
      anna |      0.006 |      unstable | alpha, hurd-i386, hppa, arm, i386, m68k, mips, powerpc, sparc, ia64, source
joeyh@auric:~>madison udpkg
     udpkg |      0.003 |      unstable | alpha, hurd-i386, hppa, arm, i386, m68k, mips, powerpc, sparc, ia64, source

Looks good, no?

-- 
see shy jo, looking forward to the upcoming quiet months in the middle of nowhere to
            get back to working on this stuff.