Re: Sources vs Packages files
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?
No, I think I disagree on both points:
1. seperate source repository
This fails miserably because we have many udebs that are built from
the same source as regular debian packages (ash, ppp, busybox, etc).
A seperate source repository would require some maintainers to
maintain two source packages in parallel, or the udebs wouldn't get
the same bugfixes made to the debs.
2. in the main archive
Well, er, define "main".
joeyh@auric:~>locate _i386.udeb |grep /main/ | head -4
/org/ftp.debian.org/ftp/pool/main/a/anna/anna_0.006_i386.udeb
/org/ftp.debian.org/ftp/pool/main/a/ash/ash-udeb_0.3.7-16_i386.udeb
/org/ftp.debian.org/ftp/pool/main/b/busybox/busybox-udeb_0.51-1_i386.udeb
/org/ftp.debian.org/ftp/pool/main/c/cdebconf/cdebconf-udeb_0.10-5_i386.udeb
As the word is typically used, they are in main. Do you really want
to confuse users by letting them see these things in dselect by
default? Seems very silly.
> 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).
I think your autobuilder is making invalid assumptions. All the others
worked fine, or with at most minor modifications like adding ".udeb" to
a list of file extentions.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: