Re: circular dependencies in debian -> impact on emdebian
On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 12:04:55PM +0200, Philippe De Swert wrote:
> Hi Erik and everybody else,
>
> Quoting Erik Andersen <andersen@codepoet.org>:
>
> > On Wed Apr 07, 2004 at 01:02:05AM +0200, Philippe De Swert wrote:
> > > > > Would this strategy avoid the need for a modified copy of
> > > > > the rules files ^^^^ in a separate emdebian directory ?
> > >
> > > The advantage is that we can add all our stuff in such a dir,
> > > without annoying the regular Debian crowd.
> >
> > If debian-embedded is going to completely reinvent the wheel,
> > they could just as easily reinvent the world using gentoo or gar
> > or whatever. What you are proposing effectively means scrapping
> > the entire existing debian packaging code base and starting over.
> > I do not think the current packaging is sufficiently broken that
> > it requires yet-another-entirely-new-and-different system. I
> > think it would be much more sensible to work with the current
> > debian build system and adjust things as needed....
>
> This is not reinventing the wheel. I already implemented the use of an emdebian
> subdir, and it seems to be way easier than using a rules file with a different
> name. Actually we just need to pass an extra flag to dpkg-buildpackage which
> will then use the emdebian subdir instead of the debian one. So the underlying
> system stays the same. It was just to avoid cluttering up the existing rules
> file.(however this problem seems to be solved if we switch to CDBS)
Would it be possible that the new embdebian rules file could be fit to do
both the cross-compilation (with the newer tools) and the classical native
compilation. What I think is that in the long run, if the modified emdebian
files become established as embedded devices (like ARM-based handhelds etc.)
become so ubiquituous, the emdebian approach could become the standard
(all packages standardizing on that approach) and this would solve the
problem of having two parallel directories to maintain.
Shoot ...
Peter
Reply to: