Re: Autobuilder needed?
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 06:01:19PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann 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.
That would be ideal. Then nothing would need binNMUs - I would be far
less worried about this transition then.
> > (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).
Hmm.. What would it take to overcome inertia on this? Since we're
likely to be the most affected (It possibly an arch-name incompatbile
way if we go for the kernel: hurd arch: i386 idea) it might be nice to
see if there's any chance would could do this (assuming it wouldn't
slow as down by >4 weeks, I'd guess)
If this libio upload is relying on me (and I suspect it is) we're
already looking like we're pushing March, which means April since I'm
offline all of March for my wedding.
Tks,
Jeff Bailey
--
Tofu - The other white meat.
Reply to: