On Monday 07 February 2011 13:15:15 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Konstantinos Margaritis > > <mar...@genesi-usa.com> wrote: > > On Sunday 06 February 2011 14:55:19 Hector Oron wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> Wookey and I have prepared a last minute talk to explain later > >> status on Debian ARM, a bit of history and future plans. > >> > >> If you have not been able to attend to it, you might find the talk > >> slides at: http://people.debian.org/~zumbi/talks/fosdem2011-arm/ > >> > >> Best Regards, > > > > Nice talk guys! > > > Ok, regarding the TODO phase, I have some things to add: > also, just a gentle reminder, konstantinos: before the information is > lost and/or diffs become too big, a complete record / snapshot of > every package and thus much more importantly every package *change* > that has been made, in order to create the initial bootstrapping, is > absolutely essential to make available, publicly.
Heh, I read that mail before but I forgot to reply. Basically, there is no such record. Porting involved lots and lots of hacks, porting debian to a new architecture is certainly not straightforward or "friendly" process, it requires too many failed attempts -build a package with those flags, then it fails, then you rebuild it again, until it succeeds, then you realize that it wasn't built with a specific build-dependency, so the package is missing functionality, but that build-dep is not available for the port yet, so here goes again... Keeping notes in the process would be like a mathematician keeping track of his theorem proof attempts -ie, not very often done :) OTOH, it's quite easy to see the diffs for most failed-on-armhf packages if you check the TODO wiki page, and/or the usertagged 'armhf' bugs on the Debian BTS. > making what you've achieved so far publicly available is absolutely > essential in order to a) save time for future people who may wish to > create ports b) save time in case a complete total recompile/rebuild > due to some subtle but unforseen and unavoidable change is required. I know and I agree with you, but in short it wouldn't help much, even if I kept notes. The main problem, er, no, the ONLY serious problem in porting to a new architecture is cyclic build-dependencies. If that is not solved, either by an extra control field, or more packages, or in the policy and with clever tools that detect circular dependencies spanning lots of packages -ie not just self-dependencies- then it's the problem will not be solved. Regards Konstantinos -- 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/201102071329.29936.mar...@genesi-usa.com
