On Thu Oct 30, 2003 at 10:45:53AM -0800, David Schleef wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 06:20:52PM +0000, Wookey wrote: > > +++ Mark Brown [03-10-29 22:51 +0000]: > > > For the benefit of those of us who weren't there what were the problems > > > with using udebs for this? At first glance it seems that for many > > > packages they ought to be able to do the job and they're already there > > > and being built. > > > > Good question - as you say it seems superficially like a sensible idea. > > > > The fundamental problem, at described by the resident FTP-master, (IIRC) was > > that udebs are simply 'non-policy conformant packages' and they don't want > > more of them than are absolutely necessary. Ultimately, hundreds of udebs is > > not something the ftp masters are going to accept. We should be making > > proper debs but to a consistent 'emdebian' policy (which says you can > > miss out the docs, for example). > > There's another fundamental problem, which is that packages built > against uClibc really need to be built against a complete uClibc > environment. Cross-compiling uClibc packages (i386-glibc -> > i386-uclibc) works sometimes, but has most of the general cross > compiling issues.
Indeed... (btw Hi Dave -- took a year or so longer than originally planned, huh? ;-) -Erik -- Erik B. Andersen http://codepoet-consulting.com/ --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
