* Chris Tillman <toff1@cox.net> [2003-10-02 16:19]: | On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:37:35AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: | > On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:23:21PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: | > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 11:33:44AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: | > > > anna will use a new control field in the next version. it is called | > > > subarchitecture and will restrict the selection of this package only if | > > > it runs on this subarch. | > > | > > the Subarchitecture field includes several whitespace seperated subarch | > > specification. | > > | > > example: | > > Architecture: powerpc | > > Subarchitecture: powermac_newworld | > > | > > currently specified are: | > > for powerpc: | > > - powermac_oldworld | > > - powermac_newworld | > | > oldpmac and newpmac where traditionnally used. Or maybe simply pmac and | > oldpmac. | | I'd definitely vote for the more explicit versions with the name in | hierarchical order, even as far as powerpc_powermac_oldworld. They've | changed often enough that there is no standard. Then you could follow | the pattern with powerpc_chrp_rs6k etc, and these would become machine | parseable. yes. that looks like a good solution. Grep and friends will allow us to parse this easily. Bye Thorsten -- Thorsten Sauter <tsauter@gmx.net> (Is there life after /sbin/halt -p?)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature