Michal Suchanek, le Wed 19 Mar 2008 12:22:48 +0100, a écrit : > 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: > > > 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.
I actually meant `that's what a typical "testing" does'. I wasn't referring to the "testing" distribution of Debian which doesn't wait for non-candidate archs. > > > 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. They aren't. It's just that the hurd-i386 buildd lags behind, and that alone leads to issues, like building old packages with newer libraries for instance. > In my experience problems for which a patch and an explanation is > provided gets fixed eventually but that's about all you can expect. "Eventually" can be quite long you know :) > And if you have a patch you can as well put a package into a Hurd > specific archive. That's what hurdfr & debian-ports are doing, yes. Samuel
