On 18/03/2008, Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michal Suchanek, le Mon 17 Mar 2008 16:34:42 +0100, a écrit : > > > On 17/03/2008, Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Arne Babenhauserheide, le Mon 17 Mar 2008 12:26:30 +0100, a écrit : > > > > > > > > As for automatically building live CDs and/or qemu images, this > would be > > > > > very useful -- maybe that part is indeed an appropriate task for > GSoC. > > > > > But as others pointed out, there are often issues with building a > > > > > working system that require manual intervention; so it's > questionable > > > > > how far this process can really be automated... I think this needs > some > > > > > more consideration. > > > > > > > > Maybe some people with more background knowledge could add their > feedback > > > > there. > > > > > > > > Would it be possible to simplify the process _a lot_ with the right > tools? > > > > > > > > > The problem is that there is no easy automatic process: missing > > > dependencies have to be found in the archive, etc. > > > > > What kind of archive? Shouldn't Debian just keep the packages until > > new ones are built? > > > Debian doesn't wait for non-official architectures to catch up.
They do delete Hurd packages when there are no new ones to replace them? I can usually see different versions of packages for different architectures. > > > > Can't there be a server with a Hurd repository that archives enough of > > core packages to allow building a Hurd system out of these? > > > The problem is to determine automatically what has to be kept. Everything. There aren't that many packages for the Hurd. Plus keep all versions of packages on some "hurd-core" list until somebody manually marks a newer version as verified working. Thanks Michal
