Re: Package Pool Proposal
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> > Is the arch in binary-arch a fix string or a stub for
> > the various arches? How does binary-all fit in here, or is it dropped?
> > And, ultimatively, how can I include binary-i386 packages in my
> > binary-hurd-i386 Packages file?
>
> I would expect that it is a stub and since Guy expressed some desire to
> kill the messy symlinks I would hope that binary-all is a seperate arch
> that is referenced directly instead of through symlinks.
Well, I would think the same, but remember what Guy wrote:
> debian/dists/{stable,unstable,non-free}/binary-arch/Packages.gz
> debian/dists/{stable,unstable,non-free}/binary-arch/pool ->
> ../../../pool/binary-arch
So it seems that if the Package file refers through the pool symlink,
all packages have to reside below ../../../pool/binary-arch.
This is the inconsistency I was trying to aim at.
> Including binary-i386 stuff into hurd is probably just a matter of getting
> the right sort of database entries and the right sort of selection
> script.. Not something that needs to be worried about till much later
> IMHO.
It would be if all binary-arch'es can be referred to in the Packages
file,
which is not what I read out of Guys description.
Anyway, note that current usage of binary-all is flawed. Of course, this
is immanent in the semantics of our Architecture: field. Luckily Guy is
aware
of this fact, and I am sure he will make provision for a better solution
in
his design (wink, blink :)
Thanks,
Marcus
Reply to: