Re: New required base packages for Amiga, Atari, ... detection
> This sounds exactly the same as the i386 vs Pentium thing. It's the
> name BASE architecture but different... implementations?
Yep, sounds similar. I haven't closely followed followed the Pentium
discussion (too much traffic here...), but it's obvious that there are
some parallels.
> One solution could be creating more distributions, like binary-i586,
> binary-atari, binary-amiga, and simlink shared files from, e.g.,
> binary-i586 back to binary-i386. This complicates things a bit,
> since a i386 package has to get an entry on i586, just like an all
> package gets and entry on all the architectures, but only if a i586
> specific package isn't already there. I think it would be the same
> with the m68k stuff. The alphas won't be as easy, I think.
This is possible, but sounds a like bit too much trouble for my
problem. There are currently only two packages for m68k that need this
special treatment. Ok, the number will grow, but it never will be that
much that separate binary-{atari,amiga,..} trees really make sense.
They would consist of > 99% symlinks.
> For the "not really arch-all" part... could overrides be
> used/extended for this? Like in "the package says it's arch-all but
> it's really just arch-i386 and arch-sparc"
I think this is an extension, but don't know exactly. Guy, you know
your scripts better than me... :-) But if it wouldn't be too much
trouble to implement it, it would be worthwile.
Roman
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: