On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Wookey <woo...@wookware.org> wrote: > We will be disucssing which arm flavours Debian > builds/maintains/defaults-to at the Debain Arm/Embedded sprint in > February. The more info we have before then to make decisions, the > better. > > It's very difficult to support people with reliable old Netwinders at > one end, and others who want to use all the shiny stuff on their new > arm netbooks/tablets at the other witout building 6 different arm > distros. What an appropriate compromise is, is currently a hot topic. > I guess you just opened it up for more input.
oh good. weelll... how about creating an easy means for anybody to create their _own_ debootstrap'd cross-compiled starting point, based on _their_ decisions and requirements, and debian can host the most popular ones? by "easy" that would mean "one config file" followed by "one command" (followed by an enormous wait and having large amount of hard drive space chewed up but that's only to be expected). * konstantinous has spent weeks if not months on the armhf port * i remember neil said he spent months - almost a year - on the armel port * each and every time someone does a new port, all the knowledge and expertise is re-learned, re-discovered... and then lost. so why is this the case? why is this information not being recorded into a reproducible form whereby it is a simple matter of "one config file" followed by "one command" (followed by an enormous long wait) ? is it somehow... _deliberate_ that nobody has created such an automated debootstrap creater? there's been 14 debian ports so far: _surely_ it occurred to someone that it would be a good idea to automate the process of creating new ports? is there a debian policy which _prevents_ people from creating an automated debootstrap creater? (i'm aware that all ports must be native-compiled but that simply isn't possible for the "initial" port, so you need some sort of 3-stage-gcc-like-bootstrap "thing" to get to that point). l. [ p.s. that last bit about the gcc debootstrap analogy wasn't my idea in case there's anyone who doesn't want to join in the discussion "because lkcl must be trying to take control of everything and tell us how to run the debian project". *sigh*.... ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktim-bgwckh2g0nyrk600oisbwxhuw6f6b_4v9...@mail.gmail.com
