On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 16:49:33 +0100, Evgeni Golov wrote:
> Dear debian-devel,
> dear maintainers of packages that contain lrmi.{c,h},
Hello Evgeni,
thanks for this heads up.
> [..]
> The following packages contain lrmi.{c,h}, [..]
> But actually we should stop duplicating code (esp. OLD code - some
> packages have lrmi.c from lrmi 0.6, 0.10 is latest) and using libx86
> only.
> If only libx86 would have latest lrmi code...
>
> David, is there any chance that libx86 will be updated someday? Esp
> because upstream of v86d has an updated 0.10 in his git at
> http://repo.or.cz/w/v86d.git and Debian's v86d is not using it in
> favour of not build duplicate code.
>
> All other (incl David), is there any interest in forking libx86 and
> using it globally instead of fixing that ftbfs 7 times?
My proposal is: is there any interest in a separate liblrmi package, which
others package would Depend on?
Sure, that would need some patching of those 10 packages (to use the
system-wide instead of the bundled one), but I believe it's a saner solution --
and it avoids bundled code at all.
I'll start work on liblrmi (i.e. ITP, making it, buildtesting relevant
packages, [..]) if some interest is shown.
Kindly,
David
--
. ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
`. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
`- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
