[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: why debian on a handheld ?

On Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:45:12 -0600
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:

> >>"Glenn" == Glenn McGrath <bug1@optushome.com.au> writes:
>  > Im sure weve all seen the threads over the years about trying to
>  > shrink base, while i would like to see it happen i think
>  > bureaucracy within debian makes it a very difficult task.
> 	Do you have any pointer to that effect? As far as I am aware,
>  the base system is whatever people who code the base system want it
>  to be. 

Debians doesnt require dependencies in base to be declared, so if a
debian zaurus system didnt have base installed then packaging may break
in strange ways.

I dont think there is much chance of getting debian proper to declare
dependencies on base packages.

There are base packages that may be considered bloat for a handheld.

>  > Debian policy makes it difficult to a shrink the system, steps
>  > debian-installer had to make such as the use of udebs were met with
>  > resistance all the way, and still arent considered offical
>  > packages.
> 	Really? I spend a lot of time on -policy, and I don't recall
>  much ``resistance'' at all. And udebs are indeed part of debian
>  (there is an effort being spent to make kernel-package make image
>  udebs, for instance), and I don't understand how they are somehow
>  unofficial. 

Debian installer packages wernt allowed in the main archive with the
.deb extension due to the fact that they deliberatly violate policy in
the control files (or lack thereof) that they include.

Changing the extension to .udeb and saying they are debian-installer
modules rather than packages allowed them in.

I dont mean to discourage people with my negativity, i just want to
point out that there may be a few extra obstactle along the way.

Anyway, i am prepared to help and think it will definetly be a good
thing for debian as a whole if it happens.


Reply to: