David Kimdon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > earlier in this list it has been suggested to have a busybox-bf package in > > > addition to the normal busybox package. I would strongly encourage this, > > > though for different reasons: > > > > > > What you suggest sounds reasonable to me. > > > I wonder if we could use the .udeb for this purpose? Adam? > > I'm not Adam . . . . anyway we have discussed using udebs on b-f for > other things (dhcp clients) and I think the gerneral thought was that > we didn't want to. Not a whole lot of good reasons not to, mostly it > is just easier to keep pulling in debs. The path of least resistance > is to make busybox-bf. > > I personally don't like the proliferation of -bf pacakges. I'd rather > the b-f build system build all packages from source, perhap seven > applying patches before-hand when necessary.
Yes, please don't try making a change to base like this at this point in the freeze. It's just going to have to be a problem we have in woody. busybox package needs to be tuned to boot-floppies use -- it might be inconvenient to others but we just need to make comprimises here so things keep moving forward quickly enough. -- ...Adam Di Carlo..<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
