[M3devel] package groups question

[hendrik at topoi.pooq.com]

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:13:58AM -0400, hendrik at topoi.pooq.com wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 04:05:46PM +0200, Olaf Wagner wrote:
> > Quoting Tony Hosking <hosking at cs.purdue.edu>:
> > 
> > >I don't care if future versions are not compilable with old cm3.  But,
> > >vice versa, old versions should always be compilable with new cm3.
> > >
> > >My gut feelings run along the lines of what Randy has said.  I do
> > >think that the average user should accept std as the install, while
> > >min is for power-users who know what they are doing. Does that jive
> > >with other people's expectations?
> > 
> > Sorry, I only now caught up with _some_ of the mails on the m3devel
> > list. Too much traffic for me to digest.
> > 
> > I gather there's been a long discussion that `min' is not really
> > useful as it is not enough to build the system. When we started
> > the cm3 5 business many years ago with lots of uncompilable sources
> > from Farshad Nayeri, we invented the following sets of packages:
> > 
> >  all  - obvious meaning. most packages did not compile at all.
> >  std  - the set of packages shipped as compilable and usable with
> >         every new release
> >  core - a useful but small set of packages including everything to
> >         bootstrap the compiler
> >  boot - the minimal set to bootstrap the compiler
> >  min  - the minimal set useful for anyone (not wanting to compiler cm3)
> > 
> > As of today, std = all, and boot isn't used any more as far as a I see.
> 
> Is that becaouse no one ever boots the compiler any more?  Or because 
> there are better ways to do it?
> 
> -- hendrik

I guess I should mention that ebian is perfectly happy if one source 
parckage (possibly the entire working cm3 system) generates multiple 
binary packages.

-- hendrik