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

Re: sysvinit and hurd

On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 12:39:56PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 12:02:43PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > IMHO, I think it is highly desirable that all packages in ftp.debian.org
> > depend on packages in ftp.debian.org. There is at least one important
> > package in ftp.debian.org which depends on the libc0.3 in ftp.gnuab.org,
> > which is newer. I think that should *not* happen. It would be like a
> > package in unstable depending on a development library in experimental.
> That's an interesting question I'm not sure I agree with.

So now that I had lunch I thought about this a bit more.

In general, I think that we should of course try to have as much
packages on ftp.debian.org as possible. But on the other hand,
ftp.gnuab.org is well known in the Debian GNU/Hurd community and
supported. This is not the case with respect to unstable/experimental on
other arches: No user is expected to run experimental, so packages from
unstable depending on stuff from experimental clearly is a grave bug.
ftp.gnuab.org is just unstable as well, albeit from a different APT

I uploaded libc0.3 there after all the necessary fixes were committed to
the Debian glibc-package repository and were pending upload. As we Hurd
porters are usually not allowed to file release-critical bugs and NMU
packages in order to make them work on hurd-i386, having ftp.gnuab.org
as an intermediate place for packages which are infrequently updated
makes sense to me. And in order to limit the packages on ftp.gnuab.org,
I believe it is alright to upload otherwise perfectly fine packages,
which need a (Build-)Dependency from ftp.gnuab.org to ftp.debian.org.

I don't care very strongly about this though, so if others think it is
not the right thing to do, then that's fine with me.


Michael Banck
Debian Developer

Reply to: