Re: tar-balls for i386 (was Re: Debian Boot Floppies CVS: boot-floppies koptein)
> > > m68k and powerpc have its own procedure; sparc and alpha is missing
> > Why can't all architectures have a single procedure they use?
Hartmut.Koptein@t-online.de (Hartmut Koptein) writes:
> For architectures with subsarchs, it makes sense to have a tar-ball only
> with this subarchs. For i386 it makes sense to have it splitted for
> base12 and base14. For sparc with tftpboot, and later for graphical, and
> so on.
Is the rationale for all these tarballs that a person on prep, say,
only will have to get common and prep tarballs?
> The current layout for intel is, all in one directory. For powerpc (as an
> example) we have directories in the disks-powerpc/current/
>
> common/ (base2_2)
> documentation/ (html, txt, ...)
All architectures *should* have a documentation subdir
> chrp/ (linux, resc, boot, driv*, ...)
> powermac/ ( -"- )
> prep/ ( -"- )
> If we could have this for all architectures i agree to have only one layout
> and only one install script.
Yes, if we can have a layout that makes sense for i386 (which doesn't
have subarchitectures) as well as for those *with* subarchitectures,
then we should unify it.
How do the subarchitectures interact with the subdirs you are
proposing (but not here demonstrating) for different disk sizes?
Perhaps intel could have
common/
disks1.44/ (note I'm trying to retain 8.3 compat)
disks1.20/
documentation/
...
But what about m68k, which has subarchitectures *and* different disk
sizes? Perhaps:
atari-1.20/
atari-7.2/ (do these still exist??)
mac (doesn't have different disk sizes)
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: