Guillem Jover wrote:
> <http://www.hadrons.org/~guillem/debian/docs/embedded.proposal>
Oh, neat.
Separate from questions of syntax and the list of supported values for
foo and bar in
Build-Depends[foo bar]:
are some more basic questions about what happens to packages from a
bootstrap-stage1 build (or crush-style embedded build, etc --- the
same questions might apply there).
Are the resulting packages suitable for upload to the archive?
In the simplest case, a stage1 build produces the same sort of
packages as a full build would, just fewer of them. Another way
to phrase the question: can that simplest case be the only case?
At the moment I am imagining a toolchain package, instead of a more
ordinary package that just has a complicated process for building
documentation. So the product from a stage1 build can be
substantially different from the final build.
A part of me wants the answer to be "yes, these should be normal
packages". So I might be able to use apt to install
ghc-unregisterised
and use it to test later steps in a bootstrap process that ultimately
produces a "ghc" package without having to redo the unregisterised
build myself.
Downsides:
- wasted time building the stage1-style packages during a normal
build
- wasted bandwidth and space for uploaded stage1-style packages
after the initial bootstrap
- complication from splitting out the stage1 product and giving
it a different name from the full package
The opposite answer would be that the stage1 build product is allowed
to have limited functionality relative to a full package with the same
name and should only be used to satisfy build-dependencies for stage2
builds and then thrown away. In that approach, as mentioned before
the binary packages should include a special field so the archive
knows to reject them.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
