Re: {SPAM} Re: question on hurd-i386 Debian architecture

[Pjotr Kourzanov <peter.kourzanov@xs4all.nl>]

Daniel Ruoso wrote:

> Em Qui, 2006-03-16 às 15:09 +0100, peter.kourzanov@xs4all.nl escreveu:
>  
>
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:46:59PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> >    
> >
> > > Em Seg, 2006-03-13 ?s 17:30 +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov escreveu:
> > >      
> > >
> > > > Daniel Ruoso wrote:
> > > >        
> > > >
> > > > > This is a call for help :). If you want to help, just take over the task
> > > > > of setting a uclibc-i386 buildd up.
> > > > >          
> > > > What is the need for buildd?
> > > >        
> > > Basically, what is described in
> > > http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd/setting-up
> > > The only difference is that you'll need to cross-compile all the
> > > packages used by debootstrap when setting up the chroot. After that,
> > > it's just a matter of time (a long time, I would say).
> > >      
> >  Read it. OK, I think it is worth a try on a rainy weekend. I would
> > really like, however, to focus on standard Debian packages, and not 
> > start/participate in a totally different effort in parallel with
> > Debian.
> >    
>
> I don't think you understood... I do think i386-uclibc could turn into
> an official debian arch some day... Setting up a buildd and having
> standard debian packages ported to this architecture should be the first
> step, shouldn't it?
>  

Yes. However, I think that 'setting up buildd' is the least difficult of 
those tasks.
It is by far more difficult to produce patches for all 'standard debian 
packages'
that make them first of all, cross-compile correctly, and (only) then 
make them
uClibc-friendly.

That is the reason I think we should focus on producing these patches 
and make them
be merged into Debian mainline.

> daniel
>
>
>