Re: smarter way to differ architectures needed?
>>>>> "James" == James Troup <james@nocrew.org> writes:
James> [1] Call me a pessimist, but I don't see binary-all-linux
James> happening any time soon due, if nothing else, to the usual
James> Debian inertia. *shrug*
Hello,
Call me overly optimistic, but I refuse to give up that easy!
(IIRC, I think the main problem we had previously was that one of the
key people involved in the discussions said he would write up a formal
proposal, but never did).
Anyway, I plan to (with any help I get):
SHORT TERM:
1. review Gordon's proposal, from
<URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy-9903/msg00005.html>
(phew... took me long enough to find it - the search engine seems to a
buggy, and didn't report any results before 2000.)
Note: this discussion is very long, and continues over several months,
I am not sure if the archive will link the months together or not. A
lot of the discussion is completely irrelevant now we have package
pools. Regardless, there are a number of important points raised.
I will write up a list of all the important points raised (this may
take a while...), in order to do step 2, next.
2. Write a new proposal. Note: this only needs to say what must be
done, not how it is to be done. I imagine it only will need
to describe the new headers required.
3. submit policy to debian-policy for new headers that *should" be
included.
4. encourage maintainers to use the new headers.
LONG TERM:
1. Change archive so Packages files are built taking these headers into
consideration.
2. phase out use of obsolete headers (if any).
3. Change "should" to "must".
FINAL NOTES:
Of course, I am speculating a lot here, as I need to do the short term
step 1 and 2 first. (I can't remember what was discussed now).
When I finish any step, I will post the results here, so others can
pick on any mistakes or other problems (as there probably isn't any
point to posting on debian-policy until everyone here is happy first).
COMMENTS?
The way I see it, with a formal proposal, we a lot better of then with
no formal proposal.
--
Brian May <bam@debian.org>
Reply to: