Re: Sources vs Packages files
Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 11:24:04PM +0100 wrote:
> 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)
Same sources, you are right, different rules.
$ pwd
. . ./ppp-2.4.0f/debian
$ grep udeb control
Package: ppp-udeb
ppp-udeb is a minimal ppp package used by the debian-installer.
$
ppp-udeb also has an entry in the rules file. udebs are typically built with a
different set of CFLAGS ( -Os, -fomit-frame-pointer ) and then the binary target
installs only the bare minimum into debian/<package>-udeb.
Some udebs don't have an existing deb, but they should be the exception, not the
rule. We already have tools in debian to do most of what the installer needs to
do, we just need to make them smaller and customize them. This is good because
now the maintainer sees how the installer is using their package without having to
grep through the boot-floppies cvs archive. The maintainer is probably best
able to help fix bugs that the install turns up.
>
> - is there any advantage to having the udebs in the main archive?
People will be able to find them. We want people to report bugs on individual
udebs rather than having all install bugs go to one package (currently
boot-floppies). I see no disadvantage, just need to change policy to allow for a
small packages with associated -doc packages.
>
> - 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.
I don't think a separate source area is a a good idea.
David
Reply to: