Re: Release management and package announcements
Ian Murdock writes ("Re: Release management and package announcements"):
> Are we going to start with an a.out 1.0 and migrate to an ELF 1.0?
> If so, I'd agree that this is what we should do (and what I'll do
> if we all think this is the best option).
I think we should start with an a.out 1.0 tree. This will give us a
bleeding edge tree straight away, and we can then use our incremental
upgrade mechanisms to make the 1.0 tree move towards ELF.
> If we're going to start with an ELF 1.0 (which is what I assumed we
> would do), we need to replace the current gcc, libc, etc. packages
> with ELF versions as the default and make the necessary changes to
> the existing packages to turn them into a.out compatability packages
> (i.e., move the libraries in /lib to /lib/a.out or whatever). After
> we do that, we need to build an ELF base system, so developers will
> be able to install a completely ELF system and start rebuilding the
> packages they are responsible for.
I think this is a higher-risk strategy. Remember how difficult it was
in the days when 0.93 wasn't useable, and many of the developers were
still `cross-developing' ?
> Somehow the FTP site maintainer's programs also need to know which
> section (subdirectory) the files should go in. I suggest that this
> information be provided by the `overrides' file on the FTP site, which
> is already used by the npdpkg program which generates the Packages
> Agreed. I don't think the location should be decided by individual
> package maintainers, though they will be free to suggest a location.
The Section field from the control file can be used for this.