On Fri, 22 May 2009 00:02:52 +0200 Hector Oron <hector.oron@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/5/21 Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> > > > > Alternative demonstration: > > > > Package: busybox-crush > > Whitelist: coreutils > > Optional: yes > > ... > > > > Package: busybox > > Blacklist: coreutils > > Optional: yes > > ... > > > > Then, something in debian/rules based on: > > > > DEB_VENDOR_BLACKLIST := $(shell dpkg-vendor --query Blacklist || > > true) ifeq (,$(findstring coreutils,$(DEB_VENDOR_BLACKLIST))) > > build: $(STAMPS_DIR)/build_deb $(STAMPS_DIR)/build_static \ > > $(STAMPS_DIR)/build_udeb > > binary-arch: binary-arch_deb binary-arch_static binary-arch_udeb > > else > > build: prepare-crush $(STAMPS_DIR)/build_crush > > binary-arch: binary-arch_crush binary-indep > > busybox-crush: build > > endif > > > > All this is very interesting and I am just wondering if Blacklist and > Whitelist are the right names to pick up, as there might also be per > DEB_HOST_ARCH differences. ? Examples ? I can't think of any DEB_HOST_ARCH differences that are not already explicit in the packages themselves. I'm expecting Emdebian Crush to be the same for each architecture, just as Debian is. That also means making the system simple enough that Crush can not only provide more architectures but also quite a few more packages. I suppose there isn't anything to say that /etc/dpkg/origins/ cannot contain <vendor>-mips etc. if there is a need for that. It just needs to be a unique filename. I've yet to work out how to set vendor via emdebian-tools though. Probably best as a command-line option with an override possible in ~/.apt-cross/emsource.conf Hmm, probably need to migrate that somewhere else under ~ too. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/
Attachment:
pgpo0GAJqdUgE.pgp
Description: PGP signature