Re: thoughts on architectures
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > That should be correct. A distribution already is just a Package file with
> > references to files in the pool. No real change there. The difference would
> > seem to be in the generation of the Packages file.
> Yes, exactly. And you need some differences in the algorithm that decides
> when to compile a package from source for a given architecture (the pool
> might contain a compatible but inferior binary package).
Maybe there should be several "layers" of Packages files. The top layer
being a basic packages list used by a simple CD vendor like myself, a
second which contains more problematical packages that will run more or
less eg, specifically optimised packages for i686. A third layer could
contain, for example, those that need some form of emulation. These could
be called Packages, PackagesA, PackagesB and suitable modifications made
to dpkg. I would imagine that there would have to be manual intervention
by the guru when installing from PackagesB.
I realise that there would have to be some way of creating these Packages
files and that the basic problem has been moved to somewhere else, but as
a consumer, this is what I would like to see happen.
Philip Charles; 39a Paterson Street, Abbotsford, Dunedin, New Zealand
+64 3 488 2818 Fax +64 3 488 2875 Mobile 025 267 9420
firstname.lastname@example.org - preferred. email@example.com
I sell GNU/Linux & GNU/Hurd CDs. See http://www.copyleft.co.nz