Re: New package standards - LAST CALL
You (Ian Jackson) wrote:
> The new source package format has been debated for some time, and I've
> now implemented the tools to manage an arrangement which I think meets
> our requirements. There hasn't been much feedback.
That's probably because a lot of people aren't listening. Alas. I've
almost ported all of base (and gcc, and binutils-2.7, etc) to the Alpha
architecture and about 50% of the base packages doesn't even have
Architecture: support. So I'd say unless someone objects, go for it.
The main reason I haven't commented is that it actually looks very good
to me, apart from one thing that I've one now though of (see below).
I also think that when you make the new source package official, we
should warn all maintainers of the base packages and ask them to convert
their packages to the new standard. If they don't react in say 2 weeks,
someone else can do it (I'll take some) like David did during the
transition from a.out to ELF.
[advantages deleted]
> These advantages make it easier for maintainers to take over each
> others' packages, and will I hope make the m68k and alpha porters'
> lives easier (when completed, at least).
Well, one other idea. Since the original source and the patch are kept
in the archive, would it be possible to look for an additional architecture
dependant patch? For example, if you have
bash-1.14.6-1.dsc
bash-1.14.6-1.EXTRA.alpha.diff.gz
and you're compiling under the alpha architecture the extra diff will be
added automatically? It would be a tremendous advantage when porting to
a new architecture - the porter need only supply the extra patch to the
debian archive and it will "just work". Also, the patch will be in a public
place so that the original maintainer can integrate the patch in the
next version of the package.
Mike.
--
Miquel van | Cistron Internet Services -- Alphen aan den Rijn.
Smoorenburg, | mailto:info@cistron.nl http://www.cistron.nl/
miquels@het.net | Tel: +31-172-419445 (Voice) 430979 (Fax) 442580 (Data)
Reply to: