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

Re: What is keeping 'kde' metapackage out of Woody?

On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 01:23:13AM -0800, tluxt wrote:
> Um, ok, but why are there these two different pages?  
> These make it seem like there is both a package "kde", and 
> a package "meta-kde" that are different packages. 
> Do these two different URL, referring to both "package kde" 
> & "source meta-kde" refer to the same, or different things/packages?:

The source is called meta-kde the packages that are built from it
include a package called kde.

> I guess the relevant item here is "meta-kde", right?

Yes, all packages that are built from a source have to go into testing
(woody) at the same time.

> So, it's not the "important" level bug holding meta-kde up,
> it's all those depends, right?
> Yow!  That looks like a _lot_ of work needing to be done on meta-kde!
> All those things have to go away before meta-kde can get into W, right?

It isn't as bad as it looks, currently the reason it is being held out I
believe is due to a bad NMU that was numbered as a source NMU instead of
binary only NMU.  With the next upload of the various packages that I do
it should fix that problem.

> Who does the work of getting all those packages built for all those
> different processors?  You?  Someone who supports those other processors?
> If you, when do you think you'll have all that work done?
> alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
> Seriously: Is it _worth_ doing all that effort?????

We have buildd maintainers that partially automate the process of
building the packages for all the various archs.  The only requirement
of the package maintainer is to insure that bugs keeping it from being
built on the other archs are fixed.

> If that is what Debian is, or has to have done for it,
> perhaps it is time to fork Debian, and perhaps build for only
> the 1,2 or at most 3 processors with the largest user base for
> Debian users. 
> (Maybe i386 & whatever apple uses for their laptops (powerpc?)
> and whatever the handhelds use (arm?).)
> (How much effort is necessary, and how many potential users are gained,
> by having to do builds for alpha, hppa, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, s390, 
> sparc?)
> Or, at least only build KDE for those 1-3 processors.  If someone else
> wants to build a Debian Linux base for servers for all those processors,
> that's fine.  And, if they also want KDE for any of those platforms,
> great, they should be free to use their time building them.

Forking Debian would be much more work than just fixing a few packages,
and most of the time the problem isn't because of the other archs. In
this particular case I think the entire problem was due to a bad NMU.
However not building KDE for m68k might be of some help.  I am not going
to do that though without asking the debian m68k group first.  The issue
with m68k isn't that they are slow to build, which sometimes is the
case, but that it uses up a lot of buildd resources for arguably little
benefit.  I have turned on enable-final in my test packages, which I hope
to upload soon, that will probably help reduce the time to build on all
the archs.


Reply to: