Ian Murdock writes ("Re: Release management and package announcements"):
> Are we going to start with an a.out 1.0 and migrate to an ELF 1.0?
> If so, I'd agree that this is what we should do (and what I'll do
> if we all think this is the best option).I think we should start with an a.out 1.0 tree. This will give us a bleeding edge tree straight away, and we can then use our incremental upgrade mechanisms to make the 1.0 tree move towards ELF. > If we're going to start with an ELF 1.0 (which is what I assumed we > would do), we need to replace the current gcc, libc, etc. packages > with ELF versions as the default and make the necessary changes to > the existing packages to turn them into a.out compatability packages > (i.e., move the libraries in /lib to /lib/a.out or whatever). After > we do that, we need to build an ELF base system, so developers will > be able to install a completely ELF system and start rebuilding the > packages they are responsible for. I think this is a higher-risk strategy. Remember how difficult it was in the days when 0.93 wasn't useable, and many of the developers were still `cross-developing' ? > Somehow the FTP site maintainer's programs also need to know which > section (subdirectory) the files should go in. I suggest that this > information be provided by the `overrides' file on the FTP site, which > is already used by the npdpkg program which generates the Packages > files. > > Agreed. I don't think the location should be decided by individual > package maintainers, though they will be free to suggest a location. The Section field from the control file can be used for this. Ian.
