On Thursday 28 January 2010, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 27.01.2010 23:26, Frans Pop wrote: > > On Wednesday 27 January 2010, Matthias Klose wrote: > >> - did you consider building the udeb from a separate source > >> package, build-depending on gcc-4.4-source? > > > > No, I had not considered that. It's an option that has both advantages > > and disadvantages. > > > > The main disadvantage IIUC would be that we'd have to upload or binNMU > > that separate package every time gcc gets uploaded (for source > > compliance), which means it needs special tracking. I think for that > > reason it's a solution the Release team is generally not all that > > happy with. > > no, that's wrong. this is only required if the upstream tarball changes, > and this is easily discovered by looking at the build dependencies.
Right. That reduces the problem a bit. It would mean that migrations of gcc could be blocked until a new "gcc-udeb" source package is uploaded. That would not be the case if the udebs are built from gcc. I'm still not convinced that the (IMO minor) disadvantages of having a udeb in gcc are sufficient to treat gcc different from all other packages that provide udebs. I would appreciate input from the Release team on this. Could someone please comment? See http://bugs.debian.org/567182#10 and later for most relevant info. Comments from others in the D-I team would also be welcome. Cheers, FJP -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
