[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Sources vs Packages files

On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 11:49:41PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 10:41:12AM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> > In short becasue udebs dont have docs, they have been rejected from the
> > main archive.
> > 
> > The whole reason udebs exist is because the new installer is going to be
> > a bit like a mini-distribution, it uses packages for the same benefits
> > that the main debian distribution does.
> 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?

I don't know about the technical issues involved, I'm afraid.  I think
that people with expertise in the area should figure out a solution
rather than ask for policy to mandate a solution: you're the experts.
The questions I have are:

 - are udebs built from identical sources to the corresponding debs?
   I presume not (at least the rules file is probably different)

 - is there any advantage to having the udebs in the main archive?

 - how much bloat would be involved in having a separate udeb source
   area?  I presume not much in comparison to the size of the rest of
   the archive, and I presume that the list of packages being made
   into udebs is relative static, so it would probably be a relatively
   fixed size.

> 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 would suggest discussing it with the ftpmasters.



         Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
       Debian GNU/Linux Developer,  see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
  Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/

Reply to: