Re: Preferred source: a fundamental question was Re: - #859130 ITP: lina
Walter Landry schreef op 2017-07-03 20:59:
Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:
For those not versant with assembler. The binary that is generated is
supposed to be byte for byte the same with both assemblers. If not it
is a bug. The sources are equivalent, the binaries are the same, it
really is the same program.
Note, that I could not have told that I use an internal representation
and nobody could have guessed (nor benefited.)
So is the .s accepted as source conform Debian policies?
Unpopular or obscure source formats can still be the preferred source.
Presumably you use this internal representation for a good reason. If
it helps you, it can help others.
As you may see in a separate post i've made an essentially larger upload
of lina, mainly to preempt legalistic reasons that would prevent
acceptance.
It contains the "obscure source format".
The basic idea is that in the main directory building is from the
assembler file, but it is a target build from an extract directory.
So there is still a clear separation between meta building and
final building where the final build is very simple.
More about the basic idea in
https://github.com/albertvanderhorst/ciforth/wiki/Philosophy-behind-ciforth
Note that the extract directory (even containing a small fraction of the
files in the generic system) can generate 2 source files in 4 assembler
formats. 6 of those 8 I've tested. Tinkering with configuration files
multiplies the number of possible generated files by 512.
Most of those assembler source program's won't work.
I invite mentors interested in the "preferred source" matter to check
whether they can agree that the package now complies with debian guide
lines.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
--
Suffering is the prerogative of the strong, the weak -- perish.
Albert van der Horst
Reply to: