Re: pentium specific packages
On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Adrian Bridgett wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 07, 1997 at 06:20:27PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > it's the obvious way... create another architecture tree, binary-i586
> > (gosh, that going to hit hard on the mirror eventually. Time to get yet
> > another harddisk for the Debian mirror ;) It's just a minor (I hope)
> > modification to dpkg:
> I agree with Andreas that symlinks are unnecessary. We really need a way of
> keeping the control file the same (apart from Architecture:) and telling
> dpkg to take packages from the binary-i586 directory if they exist. I don't
> know the internals of dpkg/dselect/deity at all - how workable is this?
Adrian, could you respond to my follow up to Andreas's post:
I feel I made myself a little clearer on the symlink idea in this post.
The problem with yours is that you are suggesting a fairly large overhaul
of dselect's ftp method (dpkg doesn't do the ftping), when it could be a
simple 1 line change from binary-i386 to binary-i586. I admit the
symlink solution is ugly, but it requires the smallest development time
(considering the ammount of time we need to spend on libc6, this is a
good thing) and has the smallest effects on the end user (from the choices
I've seen at least). A good time to do this right will be with deity, but
that will be a while. And the conversion from what I'm suggesting now to
a deity way will probably be painless, remove the symlinks, point deity to
binary-i586 first and have binary-i386 as the second choice.
Brandon Mitchell <email@example.com> "We all know linux is great... it
PGP: finger -l firstname.lastname@example.org does infinite loops in 5 seconds"
Phone: (757) 221-4847 --Linus Torvalds
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .