On 28 Nov 2003, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Even if we did manage to find a good subset of packages which would be
> > 'useful' for our users, I'm sure there will be questions of disappointed
> > users inquiring why packages foo and bar are not available.
> ...
>
> Consider the following:
>
> A good starting point would be the popularity-contest data. Anything
> used in the last half year gets build.
>
> Every package thats not compiled is replaced by a dummy package
> stating why it isn't autobuild, explaining the problem.
>
> When installed the dummy package (or a locally build version of the
> missing deb) would get reported by popularity-contest and autobuilders
> would pick it up again. The dummy package should have version 0 so any
> deb is (hopefully) newer.
>
> Alternatively or parallel to that there could be a web or mail
> interface to get packages added again (which should probably make them
> top of the buiild queue for the first build).
>
> At first some packages would be missing and some people would scream
> but we can warn before implementing this and hope enough people
> install popularity-contest on m68k to make this minimal.
>
>
> I'm not advocating this but if we take a turn for the worse this would
> be an option.
What about:
Sorry, this package is not (yet) available for your architecture.
If you really want it now, you can build it from sources. This may consume
quite a lot resources (<guestimate> about time, diskspace, download size,
...).
Do you want to do this (y/N)?
and continue with auto-apt-get-source-debuild...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
