Re: Word of Emdebian at LinuxWorld Exp (London) ?
+++ Mark Brown [03-10-29 22:51 +0000]:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 12:29:11PM +0000, Wookey wrote:
> > On the other hand we can't just change policy overnight and ask for
> > mini-versions of everything, so the scheme we worked out was to target a set
> > of basic packages that we need (most of 'base' is a good start) and persuade
> > the maintainers to add 'emdebian' targets to their rules files to build
> > mini-versions. Then we set up an alternate set of autobuilders to build the
> > emdebian versions.
> For the benefit of those of us who weren't there what were the problems
> with using udebs for this? At first glance it seems that for many
> packages they ought to be able to do the job and they're already there
> and being built.
Good question - as you say it seems superficially like a sensible idea.
The fundamental problem, at described by the resident FTP-master, (IIRC) was
that udebs are simply 'non-policy conformant packages' and they don't want
more of them than are absolutely necessary. Ultimately, hundreds of udebs is
not something the ftp masters are going to accept. We should be making
proper debs but to a consistent 'emdebian' policy (which says you can
miss out the docs, for example).
You'd get a more complete/correct answer from Kinnison himself (cc:ed)
Aleph One Ltd, Bottisham, CAMBRIDGE, CB5 9BA, UK Tel +44 (0) 1223 811679
work: http://www.aleph1.co.uk/ play: http://www.chaos.org.uk/~wookey/