Fwd: Debian Installer etch beta 1 released

[Aurelien Jarno]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 11:04:00AM +0100, Petr Salinger wrote:
> I would say that today kfreebsd-i386 is missing namely rebuildable glibc,
> based on glibc-2.3.5 or better 2.3.6. Since it will probably change more 
> frequently than stock debian/linux glibc, it might be better to have it in 
> completely separate source package. This also allow to have linux glibc 
> 2.4-based and kfreebsd glibc still 2.3-based. Another bonus is separated BTS.

Well, I don't see why it is necessary to have a separate glibc package.
If we want to have different versions, we can do as now, ie upload to
unreleased. Keep in mind that the final package has to be the same
one as in unstable, if we want to be added to the debian archive. I
really doubt the ftp-master will be agree to have different glibc
packages only for kfreebsd.

The main problem with glibc is to get it compiled and working correctly,
ie to write the missing code. Then the packaging won't be a real
problem. I also discussed with the glibc maintainers, they will accept a
patch without problem when we have one.

> It would be nice, if all other specific kfreebsd-i386 packages 
> have already BTS. It is the best place for patches from 
> unexperienced kfreebsd developers (as I am).
My plan for the last week-end was to open the BTS on alioth. I have
already started to configure it, but I haven't finished. Will try to do
that asap, and I'll send a mail to the mailing list.

> To have source packages in official debian archive will be needed also 
> for plan c) from 
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/glibc-bsd-devel/2005-October/000568.html
> It will also prevent threads like 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/11/thrd2.html#00541 .
> I am afraid, that today kfreebsd glibc is not only unrebuildable, 
> but it is also without source, even in svn changelog is not 2.3-1+kbsd.11 mentioned.
Seems I forget to commit my changes, thanks to Robert Millan, he has
just changed that.

> Could be i.e. kfreebsd-kernel-headers uploaded into experimental now ?
> I think that NEW queue processing takes some days/weeks.

kfreebsd is not an official port, so it would probably be refused.


-- 
  .''`.  Aurelien Jarno	            | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
 : :' :  Debian developer           | Electrical Engineer
 `. `'   aurel32 at debian.org         | aurelien at aurel32.net
   `-    people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net