Re: How to depend on 32bit libs on amd64? (and what to do with ia32-libs)
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Luk Claes <email@example.com> writes:
>> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>> Adeodato SimÃ³ <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>>> * Goswin von Brederlow [Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:33:32 +0200]:
>>>> Mark Hymers has talked about providing a mechanism to ensure source
>>>> packages stay on the pool when other stuff has been built from them (eg.
>>>> kernel module packages). With this, ia32-libs could become a small
>>>> source package containing scripts that would download the necessary
>>>> binary packages at build time, and would encode in a header the employed
>>>> versions; then, source for those versions would not be removed from the
>>> Buildds don't have internet access in their build
>>> environment. ia32-libs may not download anything at build time. Plus
>>> rebuilding would give widely unreproducible results.
>> AFAIK you're talking about 2 architectures, so building them in another
>> way than on the buildds should not be hard.
>> I guess you mean unpredictable instead of unreproducible as building
>> with the same versions as mentioned in the build log should be
>> reproducible or ia32-libs better just gets removed from the archive
>> altogether... Why would it be unpredictable, what issues do you see?
> unpredictable yes. The problem is that downloading packagescan fail
> for any number of reasons and gets different versions between
> builds. Verry unpredictable.
> And until there is a way for a deb to force DAK to keep other source
> packages available ia32-libs would quickly violate the GPL (binary
> without source). I don't see that magic feature comming anytime soon
> given how slow DAK changes. Till it does the above is just not an option.
Your answering to a post where an ftp-master proposal is mentioned to
change dak to make it possible... as otherwise it will just be removed
from the archive AFAICS...