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

Re: Results of the meeting in Helsinki about the Vancouver proposal

> On Mon, Aug 22, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > - binary packages must be built from unmodified Debian source
> > 
> > Uhm? When there is a new arch upcoming, they need to modifiy the Debian
> > source, at least sometimes, right?
> Yes, and this happens. I've already had requests to modify my
> Architecture: line in my nbd packages for new ports, such as amd64 and
> ppc64, even before they're part of the archive.
> It's not hard to do this, and if there's a valid patch, people usually
> apply it.

Yes, most maintainers are very helpful to porters and apply those kind 
of simple patches to add support for a new architecture. 

As someone who sent quite a few such requests, I would like to thank 
all maintainers who applied these kind of changes and helped to sort 
out architecture specific problems.

Unfortunately, there are also maintainers who say something like
"I will not make my package work on architecture xxx because 
that architecture is not part of Debian.".

This is rare, but it happens. I recently got such a reaction when I
tried to convice a maintainer of the 'linux-2.6' kernel package 
to add a small 8-line patch to support the native ppc64 port
by reusing the kernel config files which are already available 
on the regular powerpc architecture.

Andreas Jochens

Reply to: