Re: Bug#913766: ITP: librsvg-c -- the pre-Rust version of librsvg
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:22 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> Hi Jeremy!
> On 11/14/18 10:52 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> > As requested, this is librsvg reintroduced for ports that don't
> > supported the rustified librsvg yet. The name is because this is
> > librsvg written in the C programming language (instead of in Rust).
> Thanks a lot for your effort and the initiative, I really appreciate
> the idea. I also apologize for my harsh wording in the heated the
> discussion we had. I'm very glad that this - as it is always the case
> in Debian - is leading to a productive solution. Great!
> > Currently, the packaging builds the same binary package names as
> > src:librsvg. There was a suggestion to use different binary names with
> > versioned Provides (against the existing librsvg binary package
> > names). I'm not sure that provides much benefit but we can discuss
> > that.
> > I don't have the ability to do the initial upload for this package
> > since I don't have easy access to do the binary build required for
> > ftp-master NEW.
> > I don't have experience with archive management for non-release
> > architectures at all.
> The problem that we have is that it's not possible to upload a package
> to Debian which does not build any binaries on the release architectures,
> the archive would be removed from the archive immediately.
> I assume what we could do is maybe have a package that is built from
> multiple sources so that it builds different binary packages for the
> Rust and non-Rust targets.
> I have CC'ed James Clarke and Adrian Bunk who might be interested in
> this discussion as well and probably can maybe help in the process.
> Again, thanks a lot for the efforts and sorry for my heated and
> unprofessional behavior.
> Thanks a lot!
> .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> : :' : Debian Developer - firstname.lastname@example.org
> `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - email@example.com
> `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Would an arch:all librsvg-c-doc package be sufficient for the "must
build a binary package on a release architecture" requirement?