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

Re: Autobuilder needed?

On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 08:53:53AM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> Since we're on the topic, please let us know what the best way to do
> this is.  We're essentially re-creating the hurd-i386 arch - The new
> .debs will be binary incompatible with the old ones. 

At one occasion the old tree was deleted by the ftp admins.  This helps to
ensure that no cruft remains.  I would not object against this, if it is
mirror-friendly.  This was before package pools.

> (In fact if we
> could pick a less stupid name, this would be a great time to do it)

Not really.  For one, the name is hard coded in a lot of places (like build
scripts), and I don't really want to fix all these places again.  However,
the main reason is that there is little gain, because we will still be
restricted by the simple Architecture: semantics in dpkg + co.

The best time to change the names will be when the architecture handling is
reworked (if it will ever happen).

> Talking to other porters, it
> sounds like binNMUs can cause subtle dependancy problems anyway.



`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd@debian.org
Marcus Brinkmann              GNU    http://www.gnu.org    marcus@gnu.org

Reply to: