Re: Debian GNU [was: smarter way to differ architectures needed?]
In article <[🔎] 8690cbuh7v.fsf_-_@trick.fig.org> you write:
>
>Currently, the only packages that can be shared are the ones that are
>placed into `all'. This is the N=1 case.
>
>Marcus Brinkmann's (and I believe also your) temporary solution is to
>create `all-linux', and `all-hurd' as well as `all'. This is the N=K
>case, for an arbitrary constant K that takes a lot of work to modify
>(i.e. is hardcoded into dinstall and dpkg).
>I want to create the N=infinity case. If we have N=infinity, then
>really the only proper name for the superset of all those ports is
>`Debian GNU' (at least, unless we all decide to start depending on
>non-free packages, in which case the only proper name for it would be
>just `Debian').
Agreed. In another words, you are saying what I was proposing
made a number of key assumptions that made it inflexible.
If I have got this right:
So instead of of having *releases* for each combination of
<release>,<kernel>,<cpu>
You could have a *package* depend on any number of factors (as determined
important),
eg <kernel>,<cpu>,<glibcversion>,<gnomeversion>
Therefore, grub would only depend on <cpu>, but a gnome package might
depend on all of the above (I don't use gnome, so my assumptions may be
incorrect).
Just a comment: In the source code for each dependancy (eg CPU) you
would a specification, ie something like:
- the source code MUST be recompiled. eg for another CPU.
- the source code does not have to be recompiled, but still should
work. eg for another library that has the same ABI.
- the source code is incompatable with this dependancy. eg for kernel
specific code.
I am not sure what the best way would be to specify this information,
I am just saying that I think this information would be required.
>Why should all ports have to release at the same time? Why should we
>not allow different ports to depend on different versions of the same
>package?
So, you want to get rid of hamm,slink,potato,etc? How would you keep
track of stable vs unstable?
>I believe that's just a matter of time, and so I want to plan ahead so
>that the transition is easier for the Debian GNU/Hurd folks. Our
>(Hurd folks') work will resemble a cross between the libc5->libc6
>transition and Great X Reorganization, all in one.
Anotherwords: A major mess ;-)
>With dpkg and dinstall's current notion of Architecture, I dread that
>work. If my idea of generic ABI dependencies is accepted and
>implemented, I'll be greatly relieved, and actually *look forward* to
>it. ;)
>
>Now I'll begin repeating my second mantra: ``There is no such thing as
>Architecture, only Dependencies.''
>
>Are there any seconders?
So far I agree with what you have said. I am not yet an official
Debian developer though - so I probably cannot second your mantra.
Reply to: