On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 08:33:44PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Sun, Mar 04, 2007 at 09:58:48AM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Le dimanche 04 mars 2007 à 18:13 +1000, Anthony Towns a écrit : > > > > I'm not seeing why you need to be in the archive to do NMUs to improve > > > packages? > > > Because some maintainers refuse such NMUs for unofficial architectures. > > This sounds like a problem independant of this particular port - do > people give reasons for this? If the patch is invasive or likely to > have additional problems I can understand a response like that (indeed, > one of my packages has such a patch) but I can't imagine too many > packages would run into that sort of issue. as kfreebsd is basically just another kernel (and a few low-level tools), with a glibc-based runtime, I'd say that 80% of the patches are just autoconf/libtool patches, and are not very involved. for the other 20% it's due to some linux-only things that either need to be deactivated (see one of the bug# in the thread that consist to build some things without selinux support, as it's linux-only), some laptop lowlevel tools are linux-only too, or inotify or... well, I think you see the big picture. It can lead to some build-deps to be removed as well as e.g. alsa does not exists on kfreebsd. ttbomk very few of the patches are very involved, and it's a shame that maintainers do not include them asap. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpsTEVDRRt6v.pgp
Description: PGP signature