Re: Autobuilder needed?
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 09:11:58AM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> > 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?
I have absolutely no idea.
> 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)
As a basis for your own estimations, getting the dpkg-architecture tool in
place, into policy and used by the first packages took about 6-9 months, if
I recall correctly. This was for a simple backward compatible procedure
that only affected dpkg-dev.
Handling architectures correctly affects all software that touches Debian
packages, from dpkg, apt, the autobuilers to katie (dinstall), and what
not else. It will be difficult to make it backward compatible, as the
Packages file doesn't carry a version number.
> 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.
Might very well be the case. I can do package compilations and uploads, but
I don't have the time to bootstrap the base. If you can get the base done
before your wedding, I might be able to organise the rest (extending the
package tree and doing the final upload.)
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd@debian.org
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org marcus@gnu.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
Reply to: