Re: Debian-Gentoo collaboration on GNU/Hurd ports
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 05:18:22PM -0500, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> Of course, for a while we're going to be playing some serious catch-up -
> Debian has, what? Five years of work behind their Hurd port? However
> we'd be happy to engage in mutual contributions.
well, that just means there are five years of patches spared in upstream
sources, debian packages and the debian bts. it shouldn't take much time
to catch it all up :)
> > - where to discuss a porting problem? debian-hurd was typicaly
> > used for that. a possibility is to use help-hurd for common porting problems
> > and the specific lists for the distro-specific bugs. or perhaps we
> > could create a common porting list?
> help-hurd seems appropriate for general discussion of porting issues,
> unless someone has a problem with that.
fine for me. what if we use a tag to indicate clearly the message is a
porting patch? eg, if we put "[ported]" or the like in subject it'll be
made sure we don't forget to look at it and forward it to the respective bts
> > - how do we share patches? there are a lot of usable patches in the
> > debian packages that haven't been forwarded upstream yet. there are
> > more of them pending to be applied in the debian BTS. In principle, a
> > Gentoo porter should look at these places if he/she wants to avoid
> > duplicating work, but it'd be interesting to define a "protocol" on
> > what to do with patches once they're made, to ensure everyone gets them.
> I agree, but I don't have any decent ideas for this at the moment beyond
> announcing patches to help-hurd/bug-hurd so those working on both ends
> can grab them.
because the situation is assymetrical at the moment, you have no choice but
always looking in debian for already-made patches if you want them, but
debian porters don't need to look in gentoo places for patches. if we follow
the guideline of always sending new patches to help-hurd, then debian porters
won't ever need to look in gentoo places, and gentoo porters will stop
looking in debian places some day. is that ok for you?
> > - what about API porting-related bugs in the Hurd and Glibc? the debian BTS
> > entries for hurd, libc0.3 and libc0.3-dev contain porting-related bugs.
> > (ala, "function foo(), needed for package bar, is broken or unimplemented")
> > maybe we should copy and forward them to the Savannah BTS?
> > --
> Collaboration on the Savannah BTS would be handy.
fine! i still like having a separate list of api-porting-related bugs in
debian BTS, but as Marcus said Savannah is the canonical place. I'll
forward the bugs in hurd-dev and care to send a copy for Savannah when
i file new ones.
- the Glibc savannah site  doesn't have an entry for bugs. what do
the libc people here (Roland? :)) think about creating one?
- again, what about using a tag to identify apt-porting-related bugs
make: *** No rule to make target `war'. Stop.
Another world is possible - Just say no to genocide