Re: Cross compiler ITP (armel)

[Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>]

On 02.11.2009 03:19, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 02:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > On 02.11.2009 00:00, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2009-11-01 at 23:14 +0100, Hector Oron wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > >     I would like to do a little explanation on the ITP I have filled for
> > > > {linux,binutils,eglibc,gcc-4.3,gcc-4.4,gdb}-armel.
> > > >
> > > >     These set of packages provide a cross toolchain for armel targets to
> > > > be built on i386 and amd64 platforms (maybe ppc could be added)
> > > >
> > > >     In order to avoid code duplication in the archive, this packages
> > > > build depend on -source packages.
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > At present, there is nothing that will ensure that the binary packages
> > > you build are released along with the packages containing their actual
> > > source.  It would therefore require manual attention to ensure that we
> > > meet the source distribution requirements of the GPL, which the FTP team
> > > really hates having to do.
> > >
> > > Until the FTP team implements a means of automatically recording some
> > > build-dependencies and the versions actually used as additional source
> > > dependencies, and ensuring that these source dependencies are satisfied
> > > within each release, you should not use this approach.
> >
> > I disagree. It's not worse than the current scheme splitting up GCC uploads into
> > three different source packages, forced by the release team.
>
> You can disagree all you like, but I believe that the FTP team will
> currently reject any new packages that use source code from their build-
> dependencies.  It would likely be a waste of Hector's time to continue
> with this approach.

You can believe all you like, but this is the approach which was communicated to 
the FTP team at Debconf, and didn't find resistance.