[gccsdk] FW: Autobuilder packaging progress
peter at chocky.org
Tue Jan 15 09:34:17 PST 2008
alan buckley wrote:
> I think we should use John Tygat's suggestion of providing some other
> distributions at riscos.info. I'm going to look into at least adding an
> unstable distribution initially. This will be built by hand copying specific
> versions from the autobuilt distribution and then generating its
> webpages and package index.
I don't recall exactly what John said, but firstly, let's not fragment
and spread ourselves too thinly. We don't have hundreds or thousands of
developers like Debian to look after different variations of packages
not any particular reason to do so. Nor should we provide user
confusion by naming things "unstable", with the ensuing explanations
that'll be required. All we'll do in the end is ensure that such
named software won't get tested.
The best anyone can ask or we can provide is a single distribution on
a best effort basis. There might be older versions of software in
that distribution, but that's ok too.
As for manual intervention, let's avoid that too, it'll just mean
more manual effort later. If we can come up with more generic
ways of doing things, even if the initial result takes longer,
that'll be better for everyone.
More information about the gcc