On 19/03/2008, Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michal Suchanek, le Wed 19 Mar 2008 10:53:13 +0100, a écrit : > > > On 18/03/2008, Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Michal Suchanek, le Tue 18 Mar 2008 17:01:21 +0100, a écrit : > > > > > > Plus keep all versions of packages on some "hurd-core" list until > > > > > > somebody manually marks a newer version as verified working. > > > > > > > > > > It's not necessarily so simple, you need to check all the rdeps etc. > > > > > > > > But checking rdeps can be automated, and it's supposedly already > > > > working for the Debian archive. > > > > > > It usually has lot of problems and needs manual intervention. > > > > What kind of problems? > > > Libraries transitions & such.
Yes, there was a libc transition that was quite messy some time ago (actually quite a bit ago since I haven't installed Hurd ever since I switched to non-obsolete hardware). That's why Hurd needs snapshot images (if not releases), and a build process for these that goes as smoothly as possible. > > > > If packages are missing it should be resolved by archiving a minimal > > set of packages that are required for a decent base system. > > > That's what "testing" does yes. Just a few messages back in this thread somebody said that dependencies of Hurd packages aren't archived because Debian deletes the _all packages when the arch specific packages for all supported architectures are uploaded. > > > > If there are other problems these are bugs that should be fixed. > > > And that are fixed by hand in a distributed way by debian developpers. > Doing it ourselves would be a big job. If they are Hurd specific problems you cannot expect Debian developers to even learn about them, let alone fix them. In my experience problems for which a patch and an explanation is provided gets fixed eventually but that's about all you can expect. And if you have a patch you can as well put a package into a Hurd specific archive. Thanks Michal
