[helix-maintainers] Back & Plan

[Thomas Maurer]

> Then we agree to let Sarge release without Helix debs?

Yes :).

> > > I do think it's a good idea to provide sarge debs also. For Sid, it
> > > shouldn't be too hard to find a sponsor if the deb is ok otherwise
> > > (technically, policy, legal, the works).
> > 
> > Of course, sarge debs aren't a big problem (thanks to pbuilder). Do you
> > know any active DD who can sponsor us? If so, please contact him and cc
> > the list.
> 
> I'd prefer being totally sure myself that the package is perfect before
> asking for a sponsor, there are several Helix friendly ones around, so I
> don't see this as a problematic point. How do you see it?

You mean Helix friendly DDs, who can sponsor us?

After my last exams I will have a close look at the helix-player deb and
"make it perfect". When we don't find anymore problems, we give it to
the sponsor and wait for the first bugreports. Ok?

> > > > The first upload is only for i386 and powerpc which are verified by us
> > > > and the Real guys (nightly builds and official downloads). So the code
> > > > should build trouble-free on these archs. When we have working and good
> > > > debs in the official repository, we start porting. Actually I think we
> > > > just create a universal profile for ribosome and let it build on the
> > > > debian build farm. We use verbose mode, thus we can fix the problem or
> > > > send the logs to a helixcommunity list.
> > > 
> > > Figuring out how to build on all archs can be fun :) I have a semi arm
> > > buildd here, so I can test that too. Porting has already been done.
> > 
> > I think you know ribosome and the build stuff better then I do (i.e. gcc
> > options etc.). Do we need sperate configs for every arch? always
> > different gcc options etc.? The most software use a standard config for
> > the less spread archs. Thus we need one too, but don't really know how
> > to do that :/.
> 
> Just need to try this :)

Ok, let me know what you can figure out :).

Thomas