Re: kernel depends?
On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Why not just use the control file? The control file for the Intel binaries
> > would declare a dependency on bin86, while those for the other
> > architectures simply omit that dependency. Putting the correct control
> > file into the binary package is a simple matter of checking the
> > architecture being built and acting accordingly.
> There is only one control file (and indeed only one .deb) for all
> architectures, since the kernel-source packages are Architecture: all.
One of the most common complaints about the newer Linux kernels is the sheer
size of them, and I've heard many people argue for splitting the Linux kernel
source into separate tarballs on kernel.org, so that people can grab what they
need. Even if Linus has rejected this idea for the time being, perhaps
this would be a viable option for Debian, one which also allowed for
specifying additional dependencies for the architecture-specific source?
Then you could have packages such as:
kernel-source, depends on kernel-source-arch
kernel-source-alpha, provides kernel-source-arch
kernel-source-arm, provides kernel-source-arch
...
kernel-source-i386, provides kernel-source-arch, depends on bin86
... etc.
This would avoid the problem of taking up more space in the archive, while at
the same time allowing people to download only the subset of the kernel
sources that are useful to them -- without preventing people from
cross-compiling if they choose to do so.
I suppose it would make sense to also have an arch-dependent, empty package
that can then tell dpkg or apt-get which kernel-source-* package should be
installed for a particular architecture..?
Maybe this is too ambitious a solution for the problem? You be the judge. :)
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Reply to: