Re: RFC: very large, redundant packages
Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> cum veritate scripsit:
> Clearly, there are a lot of reasons not to upload such packages to the main
> archive. However, I have some ideas for other projects, still in the
> thought stage, which will require a filesystem to be available. And there
> is other, similar software in Debian (such as pbuilder) which has similar
> requirements.
Yes, it is inconvenient, but workable, since debootstrap
kind-of works. Having an up-to-date base image is pretty difficult.
It might be workable for stable, but not for unstable, or
testing. For example, through most of last year, it was impossible to
have a working base system, which required manual fixing.
(yes, through most of the days of pbuilder infancy, it was not possible
to start up, and thus it was a very difficult to use package)
To have such package of base, someone need to run debootstrap
every so often. That would be pretty difficult, and we know
the data is duplicated in our archive as individual debs.
However, it would be nice to have a well-known location for such
a file, but I doubt its usefulness if it should be in
the form of a debian pacakge, considering its size impact,
and considering that we once dropped it in favor of
debootstrap.
regards,
junichi
--
dancer@debian.org : Junichi Uekawa http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer
GPG Fingerprint : 17D6 120E 4455 1832 9423 7447 3059 BF92 CD37 56F4
Libpkg-guide: http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: