Re: RFC: New uniform packaging scheme
Hi Bastian,
On Sun, 22 May 2005, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 02:04:33PM -0400, Jurij Smakov wrote:
Are the problems with > 200 binary packages really fixed? If you want to
"fix" the problems, you have to integrate the udeb build process which
produces currently something about 300 binary packages.
At this point there are no plans to integrate the udeb building into the common
kernel build process. However, the plans for such integration do exist and at
some future point we will discuss this possibility with the installer people.
If desired, it will not be too hard to implement, as all the kernel module udeb
building work is performed by kernel-wedge.
You speak about kernel but mean linux, do you?
Right. Responding to this and other related comments I have to admit that I
have not taken hurd and netbsd into account when drafting this proposal.
I will try to contact the respective developers to hear what they think and
work with them on a common naming scheme.
Packaging scheme
----------------
To accomodate all the possibilities, the following packaging scheme
(to be implemented by the common source package) is proposed:
kernel-headers-$(version)-$(abiname)
kernel-headers-$(version)-$(abiname)-$(subarch)
This needs to contain the scripts directory.
Yes, that's the idea.
cobalt mips/mipsel? Please clearify.
What is the problem with them? mips and mipsel are different architectures, as
far as I understand.
* There is a proposal to create a common kernel-headers packages
for all arches which build from common source and containing
all include/asm-* for them. Pros: we are saving some space by
not including the common stuff (how big is it?) into the
arch-specific kernel-headers packages. Cons: to build on a single
arch user will have to pull in headers for all arches. Also
the subarch handling becomes non-uniform with the rest.
Why not use one package with the arch-specific and one with the other
parts?
Because subdivision is more complicated then into an arch-dependent and
arch-independet stuff. Config files for every flavour are different,
additionally there should be a separate common kernel-headers package for every
subarch, since they patch the source. Besides, the finer the splitting of the
packages, the larger the probability that something will go wrong.
Bastian
Thanks for your comments. Please CC: the responses to me as I would not want to
miss them.
Best regards,
Jurij Smakov jurij@wooyd.org
Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC
Reply to: