Re: New required base packages for Amiga, Atari, ... detection
martin@debian.org (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 24.12.97 in <[🔎] 87zplr74eg.fsf@mail.usyd.edu.au>:
> kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>
> > > > As in, ISA vs. MCA vs. PCI? :-)
> > >
> > > No, as in e.g. Intel-PC vs. Sun :-)
> >
> > Hardly. That would be a case of incompatible CPUs. Or does Sun produce x86
> > machines these days? Nothing is impossible ...
>
> No, the CPUs are the same in this instance, but the hardware architectures
> are different. The types of programs that need this systen are hardware
I seem to recall that the case in question (it _was_ Atari vs. Amiga,
right?) still allowed you to run _the_very_same_kernel_ on both systems.
> specific programs that only work on one kind of hardware architecture,
> even though the same CPU is used for more than one hardware architecture.
Well, yes. That _is_ the same as ISA/EISA/PCI/VBL/MCA.
> > I don't think so. Dependencies are for cases where package A depends on
> > package B. Not for hardware dependencies.
>
> I think in this case it makes sense to use dependencies such as these,
> instead of changing control files to use something like:
>
> CPU: m68k
> Architecture: amiga
>
> and
>
> CPU: m68k
> Architecture: mac
>
> and
>
> CPU: ia32
> Architecture: generic-pc
>
> The dependencies also ensure a range of hardware specific programs can be
> included at once, without having to find and select each separately.
>
> > We don't have any other hardware related mechanism, and I really don't
> > think we need one.
>
> I think Roman's proposal is a very good idea.
Well, I don't.
> Perhaps you could reconsider after taking into account this additional
> information?
Actually, I already knew all that. It's _why_ I think this isn't a good
idea.
MfG Kai
--
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: