[Debootloaders-devel] r168 - trunk/emile/debian

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 08:48:07PM +0100, Aurélien GÉRÔME wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 08:29:32PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > A requirement from the section 2.2.1 of the policy declares that
> > > packages in main must not require a package outside of main for
> > > compilation or execution.
> > 
> > There is no requirement for this package.
> 
> I do not understand. What do mean by that? Do you mean it is not
> covered by the policy?

Eh, I guess that was a brain fart, sorry :)

What I meant to say is: you're misinterpreting the policy there.
emile-bootblocks does not *require* m68k-linux-gcc to build, it only
does so if you happen to be building on non-m68k. There are more
arch:all packages in main that have packages in their build-depends line
which aren't available on some architectures. This is no different.

> > > Nevertheless, the package m68k-linux-gcc is not in main. Moreover,
> > > emile-bootblocks is an arch-all package and, as such, it must be
> > > buildable on all architectures Debian supports.
> > 
> > That's not true.
> 
> Can you point me to the binary package? I checked, but I did not
> find it.

First, it is not true that it must be buildable on *all* architectures
which Debian supports. Second, even if that were the case, it *is*
buildable on all such architectures, it's just that non-m68k requires a
slight bit more work.

Of course, it is true that m68k-linux-gcc is not in main. But that's not
a problem.

> > > For instance, just imagine an amd64 build daemon auto-building the
> > > all-arch from source uploads only...
> > 
> > Autobuilding already works. Look at your Packages file.
> 
> I also do not understand that.
> 
> > There is no reason why an autobuilder would need to build arch:all
> > packages. They don't do that, and they won't do that. Trust me, I have
> > experience in that matter :)
> 
> Sure, I trust you, but I thought there were plans to do source-only
> uploads, i.e. without any binary packages arch-any or arch-all.
> Therefore, the arch-all binary packages would be auto-built on a
> specific buildd, right?

There have been plans by some people to that effect for quite some time,
yes; but until these plans become actual, concrete efforts and leave the
vapourware state they're in right now, I see no reason to start doing a
whole lot of work just for the sake of it.

-- 
<Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22