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

Re: Porting of non-free packages



On Wed, Feb 21, 2001 at 12:51:13AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote:
> >  - Non-free packages can be included in testing without having
> >    binaries for all architectures.  (Since non-free is not an official
> >    part of Debian, this doesn't mean degrading quality of Debian.)

Not having binaries for all architectures is already fine: it's just
when there are some out of date binaries that there's a problem. I'm
fairly disinclined against breaking that rule, since it means we'd be
distributing binaries without the correct source.

> I could accept the above, but I also have another proposal.
>  - Non-free and contrib packages contain a list of supported
>    architectures.  This will be the architectures the maintainer
>    or helpers have access to.  The package can move into testing
>    when it has been compiled for all of these, and old versions
>    on other architectures (if any) are then removed.

At the moment, the maintainer of the package can file an ftp.debian.org
bug asking for removal of the old binaries, and that'll get it into
testing. Having that a little more automated might be nice.

> This list will be different from the "Architecture:" field, which
> lists on what platforms the package can be built at all.

Would the list ever be different from the union of the Architecture:
field and the architectures that have a publically accessible machine
running unstable?

> (I don't know what testing does with later builds of a package on
> new architectures -- are they moved into testing immediately,
> or held for ten days?  

They're moved immediately, without any checks, if the version matches.

> Is it possible to get such builds into
> the archive even if there's already a newer version in unstable?)

Nope; I'm not quite sure why not, I may've just been being overly
conservative.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

``_Any_ increase in interface difficulty, in exchange for a benefit you
  do not understand, cannot perceive, or don't care about, is too much.''
                      -- John S. Novak, III (The Humblest Man on the Net)

Attachment: pgpFoDxlgdRXd.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: