|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > March 2005 > arch-specific packages and the new SCC requirements
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
arch-specific packages and the new SCC requirements
|
|
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2005-03-16, 6:06 pm |
|
To be in SCC, under the proposal we're all discussing, an arch must
have build 50% of the archive, not counting arch-specific packages.
The Debian Hurd project has another category that should be excluded
because they are kernel-specific. (The current list on the web page
is update, makedev, ld.so, modconf, modutils, netbase, pcmcia-cs,
procps, ppp, pppconfig, setserial. There are surely more.)
Ideally we would have a new field in the control file to specify
Kernel (or System), which would normally be "any", but for packages
like these would be "linux". But that's a hornets nest of potential
problems.
We could ask the maintainer of update (say) to change it from
"Architecture: any" to "Architecture: i386 mk68 ...". But that's
tedious, brittle, and we all hate it.
What would really win, of course, is "Architecture: !hurd-i386". But
negative declarations are currently not yet supported. They should
be.
None of this is insoluble, and I assume that it won't be a serious
problem taking account of it, but it does mean that applying the 50%
and 90% threshholds will require more than simply looking at
statistics and applying them, because we don't currently have a
fully-robust way to indicate the relevant kind of "arch specific".
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| John Hasler 2005-03-16, 6:06 pm |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> The Debian Hurd project has another category that should be excluded
> because they are kernel-specific. (The current list on the web page is
> update, makedev, ld.so, modconf, modutils, netbase, pcmcia-cs, procps,
> ppp, pppconfig, setserial.
Pppconfig is not kernel-specific. It's just a little PERL program that
edits some PPP files. While I have never tried it, I see no reason why it
wouldn't work on Solaris or BSD.
I'm quite surprised that the Hurd still doesn't support PPP.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2005-03-16, 6:06 pm |
| John Hasler <jhasler@debian.org> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
>
> Pppconfig is not kernel-specific. It's just a little PERL program that
> edits some PPP files. While I have never tried it, I see no reason why it
> wouldn't work on Solaris or BSD.
>
> I'm quite surprised that the Hurd still doesn't support PPP.
pppconfig is for the ppp package, which is kernel specific, and Hurd
ppp support needs to be a totally different way.
Supporting PPP is a very low priority. Which isn't the point; the
point is that the "ppp" package is kernel-specific.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Joel Aelwyn 2005-03-17, 3:24 am |
| On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 11:12:29AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> To be in SCC, under the proposal we're all discussing, an arch must
> have build 50% of the archive, not counting arch-specific packages.
>
> The Debian Hurd project has another category that should be excluded
> because they are kernel-specific. (The current list on the web page
> is update, makedev, ld.so, modconf, modutils, netbase, pcmcia-cs,
> procps, ppp, pppconfig, setserial. There are surely more.)
>
> Ideally we would have a new field in the control file to specify
> Kernel (or System), which would normally be "any", but for packages
> like these would be "linux". But that's a hornets nest of potential
> problems.
>
> We could ask the maintainer of update (say) to change it from
> "Architecture: any" to "Architecture: i386 mk68 ...". But that's
> tedious, brittle, and we all hate it.
>
> What would really win, of course, is "Architecture: !hurd-i386". But
> negative declarations are currently not yet supported. They should
> be.
>
> None of this is insoluble, and I assume that it won't be a serious
> problem taking account of it, but it does mean that applying the 50%
> and 90% threshholds will require more than simply looking at
> statistics and applying them, because we don't currently have a
> fully-robust way to indicate the relevant kind of "arch specific".
The 'type-handling' package by Robert Millan appears to already be in
use for addressing exactly this sort of thing (since, as far as I am
aware, he wrote it for working on various BSD ports), at least in terms of
simplifying the Architecture: entry. See the cdbs source package for some
useful things this can deal with.
Teaching the build statistics stuff to understand what the real number of
packages for a given architecture for is a separate question, of course.
--
Joel Aelwyn <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
: :' :
`. `'
`-
| |
| David Schmitt 2005-03-17, 5:56 pm |
| On Wednesday 16 March 2005 20:12, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> What would really win, of course, is "Architecture: !hurd-i386". But
> negative declarations are currently not yet supported. They should
> be.
Research the problem (especially on=20
http://lists.debian.org/debian-{dpkg,release}/, but also include dak,=20
britney, w-b and whatever else there looks at the Arch: field) and create a=
=20
wellformed patch. I'm sure that would be very appreciated.
Don't expect your first version to be wellformed.
Regards, David
=2D-=20
=2D hallo... wie gehts heute?
=2D *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch*
=2D gott sei dank kommunizieren wir =FCber ein septisches medium ;)
-- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
| |
| Marco d'Itri 2005-03-18, 5:57 pm |
| On Mar 16, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote:
> The Debian Hurd project has another category that should be excluded
> because they are kernel-specific. (The current list on the web page
> is update, makedev, ld.so, modconf, modutils, netbase, pcmcia-cs,
> procps, ppp, pppconfig, setserial. There are surely more.)
I suppose that Hurd will have its own packages which implement these
functions, so the number should even out among different architectures.
--
ciao,
Marco
| |
| Thomas Bushnell BSG 2005-03-18, 5:57 pm |
| md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Mar 16, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote:
>
> I suppose that Hurd will have its own packages which implement these
> functions, so the number should even out among different architectures.
Well, sort of. Of that list:
update, makedev, procps, ppp [and hence pppconfig], and setserial are
unneeded, because features therein are provided in different ways, in
already existing packages. For example, Hurd filesystems sync
themselves, not needing a separate program the way Unix does, so
"update" is unnecessary. Likewise, the Hurd doesn't use a /proc
filesystem, and so it doesn't need special utilies for it.
modconf and modutils are kernel-specific; Mach doesn't have loadable
kernel modules (though it would be nice if it did), but this doesn't
mean there is some bug.
On the other hand, the Hurd has some packages that Linux is incapable
of running too. It might be that *that* would balance out.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|