Re: Fnal request for atlas package input
On Fri, Mar 02, 2001 at 10:35:06AM -0500, Camm Maguire wrote:
> OK, I think I agree. What do you think of having one package which
> covers major subarch divisions, or a package providing only the
> generic, and allowing the user to rebuild and tune to their hardware?
> The latter is certainly simpler, but
> 1) It assumes some ability on the users part to handle the versioning
> of the custom packages, so that their package isn't automatically
> 'upgraded' to the generic
> 2) Can't share /usr across different subarchs (does anyone do this
> 3) Have to remember to rebuild when upgrading CPU, or moving system
> disk into a different machine.
> Maybe these issues aren't really that important, after all. There was
> originally some preference expressed on debian-beowulf for this
> functionality, but the balance seems to have shifted.
What if you had the package install source and build the libraries in the
postinst script, according to a config file that specified what arch/subarch
options to use? Then you could configure it once, and upgrades would get it
rebuilt when needed.
People who wanted to share /usr across subarchs could use symlinks to a
per-machine directory that point back to the appropriate shared version.
(like /etc/alternatives) It might be hard to automate this, but it
shouldn't be too hard to do for the end user. Don't worry about it when
This would make for a self-modifying package, but at least we are
generating more files, rather than removing some that came with it.
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(firstname.lastname@example.org. , ns.ca)
"The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the hours!
Confound him, too, who in this place set up a sundial, to cut and hack
my day so wretchedly into small pieces!" -- Plautus, 200 BCE