Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Are the resulting packages suitable for upload to the archive?
After rereading <http://wiki.debian.org/DebianBootstrap>, looks like the intended answer is "no". [...] > So I might be able to use apt to install > > ghc-unregisterised After rereading <http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Building/Porting>, an automated bootstrap of ghc is not looking too easy, anyway. The only supported process seems to involve gathering some information on the target and then cross-compiling. [...] > In that approach, as mentioned before > the binary packages should include a special field so the archive > knows to reject them. Could you give some examples of differences between a stage1 build and a full build that this procedure might be able to accomodate? I know skipping documentation processing steps might be one common trick; I'm trying to figure out if more serious changes in the functionality provided by a package might be involved. What happens if my program grows more complicated and I need to add a step that produces an even more limited package before what was previously the stage1 build? Do the stages of all other packages with staged builds using my program have to be renumbered to make room? Any conclusions about the semantics of the Build-Depends-Stage1 field can be put into documentation in the dpkg repo so the next person doesn't have to scratch their head so much. ;-) Thanks, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
