Joey Hess wrote: [snip] > > Is it realistic to expect that eventually *all* arches will keep their > > files in the unified archive scheme and moreover that they will use > > same names? No, simply because some arches don't have subarches, and introducing a "generic" subarch is ugly. > I'm not sure about kernel naming. Some of those names may be hardcoded? The name is defined in linux-kernel-di, and in the build/config/$(ARCH) snippets. > The image naming does in fact follow a logical scheme, it may be too > complex to explain to users however. See the comments at the top of > build/Makefile. I think the mips layout would be clearer if it were a > slightly deeper tree structure. Same is true for some other arches, for > example, ia64's boot.img should be cdrom/boot.img. There is no reason to > have that in the top level. I looks that way because I wanted to avoid a directory with only a single file in it. > OTOH, we have to keep the mips subarches separate, which will make it > (and sparc) always look rather different than the i386 tree. As well as arm, powerpc, mipsel... > One thing that may be helpful is the MANIFEST file. Referring to that is probably the best for the generic part of the Manual. Thiemo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature