On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:20:25PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Stephen R Marenka <stephen@marenka.net> [2004-05-12 15:08]: > > > I'm not sure XB-Subarchitecture will work since you probably have to > > > list _all_ supported subarches, otherwise it will think they are not > > > > I was planning on that. > > Well, that's imho pretty ugly. If we add a new sub-arch, we have to > update this listing. Unfortunately, it's hardly the only place that subarchs are hardcoded. Indeed, it's already elsewhere in partman (definitions.sh). I agree, I'd like a more elegant solution. I'll still probably try it out. > > > XB-Subarchitecture would definitely be nicer though if that works. > > > > What is the real difference? Does XB-Subarchitecture keep it from > > being downloaded while isinstallable keeps it from being installed > > in the menu? > > Yes. Thanks, Stephen -- Stephen R. Marenka If life's not fun, you're not doing it right! <stephen@marenka.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature