Re: what is the whole purpose of kernel-image-di?
Joey Hess wrote:
> Ben Collins wrote:
> > I can understand it being the first milestone, but it seems to be the
> > only focus, and nothing is being considered as to how it affects other
> > ports.
> A glance at the debian archive shows that this many udebs have been ported:
> joeyh@auric:/org/ftp.debian.org/ftp/dists/sid/main/debian-installer>for dir in * ; do echo -n $dir ; grep Package: $dir/Packages |wc -l ; done
> binary-alpha 9
> binary-arm 6
> binary-hppa 1
> binary-hurd-i386 1
> binary-i386 22
> binary-ia64 1
> binary-m68k 4
> binary-mips 3
> binary-mipsel 1
> binary-powerpc 11
> binary-s390 1
> binary-sh 1
> binary-sparc 8
> This is one of the nice things about the debian-installer using standard debian
> sources that generate deb files: autobuilders automatically treat d-i modules
> just like regular packages. Anyone want to go check the build logs for
> problems to see if some of the missing items failed to build or have just not
> need attempted yet?
I just tried compiling stuff by hand for hurd-i386, the following
components form cvs compile fine
The hardware detection stuff doesnt apply to hurd as it all at least in
part depends on /proc which is a linux, so any hardware detection for
the hurd is going to have to be native, configuring may also have to be
somewhat different as well as the Hurd uses a translators to setup some
I tried dpkg-buildpackage on a couple of these they fail because they
need debhelper which i couldnt install because it depends on dpkg which
conflicts with dpkg-hurd, no doubt this is why autobuilders would fail.
I havent look any deeper yet.
A previous holdup for the Hurd was partitioning software, work is
underway to port parted, so that should fix that problem.