James Troup <J.J.Troup@scm.brad.ac.uk> writes: > Jim Pick <jim@jimpick.com> writes: > > > Of course, in reality, none of the ports is building only the "main" > > part of the Debian - they are also building the "contrib" and > > "non-free" parts.. > > What reality are *you* living in? Not one I recognize. I know that > several (of the tiny numbers of the m68k maintainers) share my > sentiments of not wanting to waste time on non-free or contrib while > main is unfinished, I'm fairly sure Chris (alpha) has expressed a > similar attitude to me in the past. I don't see many uploads by the > sparc or powerpc people of non-free stuff either. There are a > minority of m68k maintainers who compile the occasional thing from > non-free or contrib, but they are a) in the minority and b) spend the > vast majority of their time on main. Oops, sorry. I do live in an i386 reality, unfortunately, and I've made some wrong statements. The nice thing about a public forum like this is that I'll be corrected when I'm wrong. :-) I read everything you wrote, and I've go to reluctantly agree that I misunderstood things. So I withdraw my proposed amendment. Which brings me to: I still don't want to compile mico twice. I still don't want to compile mico twice. And I do want to provide the Qt-CORBA interface. (I want to build some services that work from both Gnome and KDE - a step towards merging them, if you will, which is not wrong-headed) Here's a middle ground solution: Have an optional "debconfigure" script that would be run before running dpkg-buildpackage. You would pass options to it, and it would generate the appropriate debian/rules file. The default (with no options) would be to generate a debian/rules that only built packages for main. Passing it options of --contrib or --non-free would enable building of packages for those distributions. I'm already using a debconfigure script for the Gnome packages I'm building. I run it with no options, and it generates a debian/rules (which I include in the upload). Alternatively, I specify different options, and I can make snapshot packages that install into different locations and have different names. How does that sound? It's a bit of a radical change though. That's why I thought I'd try to see if the simple policy change would fly first (but it didn't). Cheers, - Jim
Attachment:
pgpz1d61Wh6uX.pgp
Description: PGP signature