Re: RFC: Replacing vim-tiny with nano in essential packages
On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 10:10:22 +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> And the issue with vim-common being out of sync is not trivially fixable
> with Debian Ports as we don't have the cruft feature that DAK has.
It seems to me that this is a large part of the problem here. DAK
presumably has that feature for good reasons, and if the Ports archive is
missing features that DAK has, the Ports is going to hit bad situations
that the maintainers of "Debian proper" don't necessarily consider to be
a big deal because the DAK-driven Debian archive copes better with them.
If anything, I would expect the Ports archive to need to be *more*
featureful than the archive for release architectures, because on release
architectures it's a RC bug if an architecture is long-term out-of-sync
with the other release architectures, whereas on Ports there are sometimes
architecture-specific modifications to packages (if I understand correctly),
and there are definitely architectures that don't/can't keep up, either
because their buildds are slower or because a build-dependency FTBFS on
that architecture.
smcv
Reply to: