Philip Charles <philipc@copyleft.co.nz> writes: > > I disagree. I think kernel.doc should go in the Packages file for the > > Hurd, unless you can justify that it won't work on that platform. > > More unnecessary clutter? Sure, it can be installed, but why have it on > a Hurd CD or in a partial mirror? I think you two have completely orthogonal issues in mind: 1. Is package X usable on platform Y? 2. How big do we estimate the userbase for package X on platform Y? The first point is fulfilled if at least one person can and will use X on Y. Of course it is somewhat wasteful to put X on every user's "Debian Y" CD. Ideally we want to put the most used packages on every CD, and the rest on optional CDs. What is most used may vary across platforms. Dependency-like fields (Depends, Conflicts, the new Build-For) cater to the first issue. I think the Priority field is a more viable solution to the second one. I understand that priority is already used to decide what goes on the first official Debian CD, and that some reduced sets exist which leave off anything "extra", or even "optional", too. Of course, up to now priority has been constant over all (Linux) architectures. But this may be changed, perhaps somewhat like this: Package: linux-kernel-doc Priority: linux: optional, all: extra Package: mig Priority: hurd: standard, all: optional -- Robbe
Attachment:
signature.ng
Description: PGP signature