Re: Release management and package announcements

[Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk>]

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
>    files.
> 
> 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.

Ian.