Re: GSoC application deadline passed

[Michal Suchanek]

On 18/03/2008, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
> Michal Suchanek, le Mon 17 Mar 2008 16:34:42 +0100, a écrit :
>
> > On 17/03/2008, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
>  > > Arne Babenhauserheide, le Mon 17 Mar 2008 12:26:30 +0100, a écrit :
>  > >
>  > > > > As for automatically building live CDs and/or qemu images, this 
> would be
>  > >  > > very useful -- maybe that part is indeed an appropriate task for 
> GSoC.
>  > >  > > But as others pointed out, there are often issues with building a
>  > >  > > working system that require manual intervention; so it's 
> questionable
>  > >  > > how far this process can really be automated... I think this needs 
> some
>  > >  > > more consideration.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Maybe some people with more background knowledge could add their 
> feedback
>  > >  > there.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > Would it be possible to simplify the process _a lot_ with the right 
> tools?
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > The problem is that there is no easy automatic process: missing
>  > >  dependencies have to be found in the archive, etc.
>  > >
>  > What kind of archive? Shouldn't Debian just keep the packages until
>  > new ones are built?
>
>
> Debian doesn't wait for non-official architectures to catch up.

They do delete Hurd packages when there are no new ones to replace
them? I can usually see different versions of packages for different
architectures.

>
>
>  > Can't there be a server with a Hurd repository that archives enough of
>  > core packages to allow building a Hurd system out of these?
>
>
> The problem is to determine automatically what has to be kept.

Everything. There aren't that many packages for the Hurd. Plus keep
all versions of packages on some "hurd-core" list until somebody
manually marks a newer version as verified working.

Thanks

Michal