[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bootstrappable Debian - proposal of needed changes

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 09:51:32PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 09:34:16AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 08:33:57AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > If wanna-build is updated to support these two fields, then I imagine
> > > it can run the bootstrapping dependency algorithm. While you wouldn't
> > > want to upload a package to the debian.org archive when the
> > > architecture is as yet incomplete, the same isn't true for the
> > > debian-ports.org archive.

> > > It would require some patches for wanna-build to understand that package
> > > "foo" would need to be rebuilt once a particular profile is fully built
> > > and available, but I don't think that's impossible.

> > I'm not sure if wanna-build is the right tool to do this

> Why not?

> It already needs to do build-dependency tracking, marking packages as
> "can't be built yet because build-depends aren't there yet" all the
> time. That's exactly the sort of thing you need to be doing, no?

I would say it differently: we don't *need* wanna-build to be the tool which
supports handling of the bootstrapping rebuilds.  The minimum we need from
wanna-build is that it be able to parse the extra profile data and ignore
the bits it doesn't care about for official archive builds.

Then, if the folks experimenting with doing cross-bootstrapping find it
easier to dispatch their bootstrapping builds using some other tool, that's
fine.  And if they prefer to use wanna-build, that's fine too.  wanna-build
just doesn't need to be a blocker.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: