Re: RFC: Replacing vim-tiny with nano in essential packages
(I'm not subscribed to debian-devel, please keep me CC'ed)
> 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.
It still remains a problem because we don't release Debian with packages
that fail to build from source. If you are just ignoring the problem here,
you will postpone its solution into the future, nothing else.
Eventually, someone has to fix vim.
> 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.
vim *is* out of sync. It's not a problem that affects Debian Ports only,
it's not a ports-specific bug. It just shows more prominently in Debian
Ports.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Reply to: