Re: Can't create an i386 ISO, but amd64 works fine
On 14/07/11 06:39 PM, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> On 07/14/2011 07:06 PM, Ben Armstrong wrote:
>> if you do both arches from the same tree there would be a risk that one image is
>> "tainted" with stuff from the wrong arch if you didn't take care.
> provided that one does a) ensure the generated config files in config/
> are removed in auto/clean, b) the generated config files in config/* are
> created in auto/config, and c) one does a lb clean before 'switching'
> the architecture, i see no problem in having two archs configured in one
Not just lb clean, but lb clean --purge to get rid of cached bootstrap.
That's why I'm not really keen on this approach, as if you're doing much
switching between architectures, you'll lose the benefit of keeping the
cache around. Now, if the caches existed in arch-specific directories,
that would be another matter ... I haven't checked this ...
> just to be clear: while i keep as described all architectures and
> distributions in one single config tree, i do check it out on the buildd
> freshly from git every time i want to build it. so, tainting is not so
> much of a problem.
Ah, so you're already not benefiting from caching.
> otoh, if the config tree is not done well, the result can be that either
> the different architectures images are not really aequivalent (same
> package selection, etc), or, that the image can actually be built. so,
> as long as one makes sure that all the arch conditionals are configured
> properly for all architectures aequivalently, the images if built in a
> proper environment, will be fine.
Sure. Well, I don't fundamentally disagree with you on any point of your
approach, but as things stand I don't think there is one "ideal"
solution. I guess it just depends on what tradeoffs you prefer.