Re: design of an apt-src program
Steve Langasek wrote:
> As part of #10, I think it's important that the archive software support
> tracking of source build dependencies. Without this feature, it's a
> step back for at least one of the packages cited below:
> toolchain-source may contain versions of binutils and gcc that don't
> correspond to any binary packages in the archive. So how does the
> archive software know how long to keep a source package around in such a
> case?
I think that right now retention of source-only package is special cased
in for eg, pine. That may not scale well. An apt-src type thing does
probably tend to point toward more source-only packages (but not too
many more, I'd hope), but it doesn't require that happen, and I think
the FTP admins must have a lot of say in that ultimatly.
It'd worth nothing that the archive manintanence software does not yet
even keep track of build-depends, and they are broken all the time by
changes to the archive.
> Also, I believe the toolchain-source package includes a number of
> patches that are primarily of interest to people doing cross-building.
> Perhaps more to the point, the toolchain-source package has a different
> maintainer than the binutils and gcc source packages. What's the best
> way to reconcile this?
That's just evil. :-/
--
see shy jo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: