Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source
Hector Oron <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Dear developers,
> How to enable in some special cases a way to allow one source
> package have multiple maintainers within Debian archive.
It might be better to say they have different flavours which should (out
of practicallity) or must be build on their own.
You say huh? should? must?
Well, "should" is the case you described. You have different (teams of)
maintainers with different extra patches or use cases that work best on
their own. Or building all the flavours at once would create a monster
package that would take forever to build and thus hinder developing the
But there are also "must" cases, at least for now. For cross compiling
you need certain libraries like libgcc1, packaged as libgcc1-armel-cross
for example. The libgcc1-armel-cross is an arch:all package to be used
by any cross compiler of any arch compiling for armel. Lacking all the
cross compilers the package must also be compiled on armel, at least for
On the other hand libgcc1-mipsel-cross is build on mipsel and also
arch:all. But any package upload must contain all the arch:all packages
of a source. Which means the gcc maintainer would have to build gcc on
all architectures manually and merge the results to get all the arch:all
packages for an upload. Something that is just not feasable.
So libgcc1-armel-cross must be build seperate from the normal gcc
package and libgcc1-mipsel-cross too. There needs to be one
gcc-x.y-$arch source package per architecture for full cross compile
coverage. With the above proposal they would all Build-Depend on the gcc
source and only contain a minimal debian dir though. They could probably
also be just binNMUed whenever gcc-x.y is uploaded, something that could
even be automated.