Re: PROPOSAL: one debian list for all porting efforts
Martin Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: around compiling all the i386 stuff for the other archs. But nobody goes around compiling the stuff from the other archs for i386! So if I suddenly do all my package development on Alpha, the Alpha will have the current versions, and perhaps the Sparc and m68k too, but i386 will be obsolete! Fix anybody? I have been compiling the enscript package for i386, which Hartmut Koptein maintains on powerpc. So there are people doing this, it just isn't widespread at the moment. Excellent. Is there some sort of automated mechanism like the other platforms have? (That is, packages get automatically build on these other platforms)? -- John Goerzen Linux, Unix consulting programming [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Developer, Debian GNU/Linux (Free powerful OS upgrade) www.debian.org | + Visit the Air Capital Linux Users Group on the web at http://www.aclug.org
Re: PROPOSAL: one debian list for all porting efforts
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Martin Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: around compiling all the i386 stuff for the other archs. But nobody goes around compiling the stuff from the other archs for i386! So if I suddenly do all my package development on Alpha, the Alpha will have the current versions, and perhaps the Sparc and m68k too, but i386 will be obsolete! Fix anybody? I have been compiling the enscript package for i386, which Hartmut Koptein maintains on powerpc. So there are people doing this, it just isn't widespread at the moment. Excellent. Is there some sort of automated mechanism like the other platforms have? (That is, packages get automatically build on these other platforms)? I believe people use quinn-diff plus dbuild plus god knows ? .A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]URL:http://www.onShore.com/
Re: PROPOSAL: one debian list for all porting efforts
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) writes: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Martin Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: around compiling all the i386 stuff for the other archs. But nobody goes around compiling the stuff from the other archs for i386! So if I suddenly do all my package development on Alpha, the Alpha will have the current versions, and perhaps the Sparc and m68k too, but i386 will be obsolete! Fix anybody? I have been compiling the enscript package for i386, which Hartmut Koptein maintains on powerpc. So there are people doing this, it just isn't widespread at the moment. Excellent. Is there some sort of automated mechanism like the other platforms have? (That is, packages get automatically build on these other platforms)? I believe people use quinn-diff plus dbuild plus god knows ? [Incidentally, m68k uses debbuild for humans and the build daemons use something even c00ler.] Quinn diff can't trivially handle i386, mostly because of binary-only NMUs, last time I checked. But since the only actual case of this phenomenon is still Hartmut (and Martin is, apparently, making his packages a non-issue), I haven't bothered to think about it very hard. If it really is a problem nowadays, I could, of course... [Off the top of my head: enforcing a new numbering policy for bin-only NMU's (e.g. 3.5-1 - 3.5-1.0.1 (and not 3.5-1.1)) would solve the problem and would also solve the problem of bin-only NMU's being clobbered by source NMU's; I did mean to propose this to debian-policy several months ago, but apparently I never got round to it] -- James
Re: PROPOSAL: one debian list for all porting efforts
John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: around compiling all the i386 stuff for the other archs. But nobody goes around compiling the stuff from the other archs for i386! So if I suddenly do all my package development on Alpha, the Alpha will have the current versions, and perhaps the Sparc and m68k too, but i386 will be obsolete! Fix anybody? I have been compiling the enscript package for i386, which Hartmut Koptein maintains on powerpc. So there are people doing this, it just isn't widespread at the moment. Martin.
Re: PROPOSAL: one debian list for all porting efforts
Agreed. To think otherwise is silly. As I am about to swith to Alpha, I have a conern: I maintain some dozen or so packages, currently under i386. There are people that go around compiling all the i386 stuff for the other archs. But nobody goes around compiling the stuff from the other archs for i386! So if I suddenly do all my package development on Alpha, the Alpha will have the current versions, and perhaps the Sparc and m68k too, but i386 will be obsolete! Fix anybody? John Joel Klecker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At 12:30 +0200 1998-10-14, Paul Slootman wrote: On Mon 12 Oct 1998, Hartmut Koptein wrote: :-) debian/i386 is also a port! No. For 90% (I think more) of the packages it is the primary architecture. The word port implies carrying to _another_ architecture. Hence the package on the primary architecture is _not_ a port. To me it is a port, a port of Debian GNU/Linux. -- Joel Klecker (aka Espy) URL:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]URL:http://web.espy.org/ Debian GNU/Linux user/developer on i386 and powerpc. URL:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- John Goerzen Linux, Unix consulting programming [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Developer, Debian GNU/Linux (Free powerful OS upgrade) www.debian.org | + Visit the Air Capital Linux Users Group on the web at http://www.aclug.org
Re: PROPOSAL: one debian list for all porting efforts
At 12:30 +0200 1998-10-14, Paul Slootman wrote: On Mon 12 Oct 1998, Hartmut Koptein wrote: :-) debian/i386 is also a port! No. For 90% (I think more) of the packages it is the primary architecture. The word port implies carrying to _another_ architecture. Hence the package on the primary architecture is _not_ a port. To me it is a port, a port of Debian GNU/Linux. -- Joel Klecker (aka Espy) URL:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]URL:http://web.espy.org/ Debian GNU/Linux user/developer on i386 and powerpc. URL:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] URL:http://www.debian.org/
Re: PROPOSAL: one debian list for all porting efforts
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 08:15:02AM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote: At 12:30 +0200 1998-10-14, Paul Slootman wrote: On Mon 12 Oct 1998, Hartmut Koptein wrote: :-) debian/i386 is also a port! No. For 90% (I think more) of the packages it is the primary architecture. The word port implies carrying to _another_ architecture. Hence the package on the primary architecture is _not_ a port. To me it is a port, a port of Debian GNU/Linux. To me, too. At the time I made the suggestion, I had in mind also i386 people who are interested in porting, but do not have any specific architecture in mind. This would also help the communication between the i386 folks and the porter subset. Marcus -- Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.Debian GNU/Linuxfinger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.orgmaster.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Re: PROPOSAL: one debian list for all porting efforts
On Mon 12 Oct 1998, Hartmut Koptein wrote: to increase communication betweenm the ports and between porters and non-porters, I'd propose a new list: debian-porting or sim. I fully support this proposal (The name debian-porting seems fine to me) No, we haven't enough topics for this new list. It would be a useful way of communicating diffs that were necessary to build a package on a given architecture (those diffs usually involve fixing some silly packaging bug, and are then applicable to all other architectures on which the package is to be ported). IMHO, it makes sence to create a new list, since it seems 90% of the Debian developers use i386 only... :-) debian/i386 is also a port! No. For 90% (I think more) of the packages it is the primary architecture. The word port implies carrying to _another_ architecture. Hence the package on the primary architecture is _not_ a port. I'm thinking of using my Alpha as primary platform for my packages, let the i386 people take care of porting them! (Although I think that porting would never happen...) Paul Slootman -- home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wurtel.demon.nl | Murphy Software, Enschede, the Netherlands
Re: PROPOSAL: one debian list for all porting efforts
to increase communication betweenm the ports and between porters and non-porters, I'd propose a new list: debian-porting or sim. I fully support this proposal (The name debian-porting seems fine to me) No, we haven't enough topics for this new list. IMHO, it makes sence to create a new list, since it seems 90% of the Debian developers use i386 only... :-) debian/i386 is also a port! MfG, Hartmut -- Hartmut Koptein EMail: Friedrich-van-Senden-Str. 7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 26603 Aurich Tel.: +49-4941-10390 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PROPOSAL: one debian list for all porting efforts
Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: to increase communication betweenm the ports and between porters and non-porters, I'd propose a new list: Much more important than a new list would be an archive reflecting porting experiences and techniques developed during porting. I'd be in favor of a list which focussed on this topic. But since porting to one system generally happens completely out of sync with porting to another system, I don't think that a list which isn't focussed on distilling the important issues is going to be very helpful. -- Raul
Re: PROPOSAL: one debian list for all porting efforts
On Sat, 10 Oct 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
to increase communication betweenm the ports and between porters and
non-porters, I'd propose a new list:
debian-porting
alternative names:
debian-ports
debian-porter
debian-porters
or sim.
I fully support this proposal (The name debian-porting seems fine to me)
Do you think this list would be useful or that the already existing lists can
carry the load (namely debian-devel)?
IMHO, it makes sence to create a new list, since it seems 90% of the
Debian developers use i386 only...
Vincent,
(Currently installing hamm on his Mac. Quadra700)
--
- Vincent RENARDIAS[EMAIL PROTECTED],pipo}.com,{debian,openhardware}.org} -
- Debian/GNU Linux:Open Hardware: WAW: -
- http://www.fr.debian.org http://www.openhardware.org http://www.waw.com -
---
-Depuis que ma voiture et mon ordinateur tournent au GPL, les 2 marchent -
- beaucoup mieux et pour moins cher... (Linux: Le seul OS non-polluant!) -
Re: PROPOSAL: one debian list for all porting efforts
Marcus Brinkmann wrote: Purpose of the list would be problems with porting to new architectures, either package specific or general. Problems with bootstrapping a new architecture. Cross compilation of Debian packages. Maybe setting up some documents or entries in the FAQ-O-MATIC. Do you think this list would be useful or that the already existing lists can carry the load (namely debian-devel)? This list is not needed and I don't consider it useful at all. Porting problems are arch-specific and thus should be discussed in that specific list. General questions (e.g. using -mbla with dpkg-genchanges) should be discussed on -devel. Regarding ports to new architectures one should look into the other lists, especially if parts of the architecture are similar. It would not make sense for porters to not only post their mail to the arch specific list but also to the -porters list. Regards, Joey -- Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
Re: PROPOSAL: one debian list for all porting efforts
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Do you think this list would be useful or that the already
existing lists can carry the load (namely debian-devel)?
This list is not needed and I don't consider it useful at all.
(As a porter) I disagree; I've often wanted to contact more than just
m68k porters, and short of cross-posting (aka spamming)
debian-{alpha,powerpc,sparc,(whatever other lists there are for the
newer ports)}, which are also user lists, I can't do that.
General questions (e.g. using -mbla with dpkg-genchanges) should
be discussed on -devel.
Blah; debian-devel has _way_ too much traffic already, so much so that
several porters don't read it.
--
James
Re: PROPOSAL: one debian list for all porting efforts
James Troup wrote:
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Do you think this list would be useful or that the already
existing lists can carry the load (namely debian-devel)?
This list is not needed and I don't consider it useful at all.
(As a porter) I disagree; I've often wanted to contact more than just
m68k porters, and short of cross-posting (aka spamming)
debian-{alpha,powerpc,sparc,(whatever other lists there are for the
newer ports)}, which are also user lists, I can't do that.
So you want to force all porters to join another list? Why not contact
them in their native lists?
Regards,
Joey
--
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it. -- Donald E. Knuth
Re: PROPOSAL: one debian list for all porting efforts
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So you want to force all porters to join another list? HTH does one force volunteers? No, I want the list to be available if porters want to join it. Why not contact them in their native lists? Because these lists are for users too and mass cross-posting is offensive. -- James
