On 31 Mar 2001, Brian May wrote: > Sorry I have been so long to reply, I have been busy(TM). Anyway, I > have totally mangled, killed and destroyed your original proposal. > This is may not be better then other proposals, but that is open to > discussion. > > I believe that this is totally flexible, and allows specifying the > build platform(s) and the destination platform(s) independently. > > Currently it is very brief, but should be understandable: > > PROPOSAL: > > Use three fields. > > 1. build-for: specify what destination can be used. > 2. build-depends: specify what is required to build. > 3. depends: what is required by binary package. > > (note: currently source is available on all platforms, but maybe one > day with build-depends this could change. eg. have a seperate Sources > package for each platform).
**cut <complaint> Seems a good scheme to me, but what about the .deb packages? At the moment 30% - 40% of the offical Hurd archive is rubbish. It can be installed, but is not appropriate to a Hurd system for two reasons. 1. It is Linux specific. Kernel source/patches/doc 2. It is documentation that relates to a package which has not/cannot been ported to the Hurd. I have a list of over 100 of these. All these are included the the Hurd Packages file. As yet I have not been game to produce a set of Hurd source CDs as I suspect I could be opening a can of worms.</complaint> Phil. - Philip Charles; 39a Paterson St., Dunedin, New Zealand; +64 3 4882818 Mobile 025 267 9420. I sell GNU/Linux CDs. See http://www.copyleft.co.nz [EMAIL PROTECTED] - prefered. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
