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 firstname.lastname@example.org
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org email@example.com