Re: buildd administration -- TeX related FTBFS
Osamu Aoki <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Osamu Aoki <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > I think one to ease tension is to make tetex packages to coexist in
>> > archive just like many gcc.
> I should have been clear. I wish them to coexist only in "archive" but
> they can conflict each other to make only one of them to be installed.
> Maybe, dummy package to go with them is also nice.
> I know it is too much work to make them installable simultaneously.
> Maintaining 2 version are still a lot of work, though.
That is in fact a good suggestion. It's too late now for teTeX-3.0; but
for the next upstream release, or a possible switch to texlive, we'll
definitely keep the other version around.
> As for auto-building some sections of archive in sid environment but
> overriding some packages with ones from experiment or local archive, I
> think pbuilder should be useful. (I will try it some time soonish. It
> should be quite simple.)
pbuilder is nice, I use it all the time. But it's not very useful if
you want to autobuild more than a couple of packages; setting up a real
buildd is the method of choice here, but it isn't as trivial as
pbuilder, it takes more machine power, bandwidth, and of course in the
end you need to process all those packages...
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich