Re: 2.6.12 upload
On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 09:03:39PM +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Andres Salomon wrote:
> [snip]
> > >> - Dependencies with arch spec for one-arch packages.
> > >
> > > Right, the control file is full of the packages with control fields like
> > > this:
> > >
> > > Architecture: powerpc
> > > Depends: initrd-tools (>= 0.1.78), coreutils | fileutils (>= 4.0),
> > > module-init-tools (>= 0.9.13), e2fsprogs (>= 1.35-7) [amd64], palo [hppa],
> > > mkvmlinuz [powerpc]
> > >
> > > The non-powerpc dependencies will probably not break anything, but
> > > introduce a lot of additional clutter. I understand that it's easier that
> > > way, but having only relevant dependencies listed would be cleaner. And,
> > > to improve readability, it would be nice to have all the control file
> > > generation logic moved to a separate script, which may be called from the
> > > the rules file.
> >
> > I disagree. I did it this way because I prefer to see exactly what
> > architectures are using for their boot loaders, etc. That's just my
> > preference.
>
> The bootloader dependencies need to be per flavour. It makes no sense
> to depend on N bootloaders for an architecture where N-1 are unusable
> for the specific flavour's kernel image.
We could also have a common bootloader package, which would depend on the
right thing for each arch, and then use some trick like the mkvmlinuz debconf
question to let the user select the bootloader. not sure if we can then have
the debconf questions download and install the bootloader, or if we could ask
the apt/dpkg/whatever folk to add per-subarch dependencies.
Maybe we could simply have a per flavour entry that is appended to the depends
though, so we can set it by hand for each linux-image.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: