(Note: I wrote my second reply before polling my mail, so it is a bit out of sync to this mail :)
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 05:33:32PM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote: > On Sat, Aug 07, 1999 at 04:08:56PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > Are you actually involved in any of our porting efforts? > > No, as I don't have the required hardware. Then please trust the experience of porters like Joel, Roman and me in this one point at least. > > or at least check one of the mailing lists frequently, to learn what > > is involved. > > I lurk on several Hurd lists, including debian-hurd. > > > Don't forget that Debian is not Linux anymore > > I'm not forgetting that. But there is another point of trying to > make sure Debian is as same as possible in its all incarnations, in > one release. This is another story. It is definitely something to consider for the user interface (same package management, same over-all design), but definitely not at system level. Especially not at the level where you compile parts of the low level operating system! > Architecture-dependent build dependencies can lead into > forgetting that goal. (Could we agree on a phrase in policy in the style > of "don't use the architecture-dependent build dependencies unless you > really have to"?) There are two things here. Of course, I don't want architecture specific dependencies where a bug or source incompatibility is preventing compilation of the package with a certain set of packages. But for additional features only some supported operating systems can provide I think it is a good idea to enable them and suck in further dependencies if required. For example, if a Hurd specific addition to the tar program (support for translators) would make it necessary to link tar with the hurd libraries, we need those libraries on the Hurd only. I can understand your concern of "bad" use of arch specific source dependencies, but I think I have two reasons why they won't be a big deal: . The porter and the maintainer are often different persons. This raises the barrier to add unnecessary source-dependencies and will make sure that more than two eyes watch over it. . In my experience, different source dependencies can hardly solve any incompatibility problems on the user level. Especially the first argument is very strong. Then, it is in everybodies interest that the source dependencies are clean. To answer your question: I think we can agree on such a phrase, but not in the way you said it. There is no need to "discourage" proper use of arch specific source dependencies. I am currently lacking some imagination. Can anybody come up with a good wording? Something like: "General source dependencies are preferred over architecture specific dependencies". (to make it sound positive and not negative). However, as we can't specify *when* arch specific source dependencies are required, it doesn't matter much. I doubt that any such a phrase would have a huge impact on the way arch specific source dependencies can be used. But it does not harm to mention it either. So just do it :) > > Are you converted now? :) > > Possibly. I see your point and I trust that you wouldn't put this much > effort to convince me if you didn't believe in what you're saying ;-) Definitely :) The real reason I am putting this pressure on you is that I am leaving for holidays next tuesday, and won't come back in the discussion time of this proposal. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@ Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org master.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] for public PGP Key http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
