Re: smarter way to differ architectures needed?
On 31 Mar 2001, Brian May wrote:
> Sorry I have been so long to reply, I have been busy(TM). Anyway, I
> have totally mangled, killed and destroyed your original proposal.
> This is may not be better then other proposals, but that is open to
> discussion.
>
> I believe that this is totally flexible, and allows specifying the
> build platform(s) and the destination platform(s) independently.
>
> Currently it is very brief, but should be understandable:
>
> PROPOSAL:
>
> Use three fields.
>
> 1. build-for: specify what destination can be used.
> 2. build-depends: specify what is required to build.
> 3. depends: what is required by binary package.
>
> (note: currently source is available on all platforms, but maybe one
> day with build-depends this could change. eg. have a seperate Sources
> package for each platform).
**cut
<complaint>
Seems a good scheme to me, but what about the .deb packages? At the
moment 30% - 40% of the offical Hurd archive is rubbish. It can be
installed, but is not appropriate to a Hurd system for two reasons.
1. It is Linux specific. Kernel source/patches/doc
2. It is documentation that relates to a package which has not/cannot been
ported to the Hurd. I have a list of over 100 of these.
All these are included the the Hurd Packages file. As yet I have not been
game to produce a set of Hurd source CDs as I suspect I could be opening a
can of worms.</complaint>
Phil.
-
Philip Charles; 39a Paterson St., Dunedin, New Zealand; +64 3 4882818
Mobile 025 267 9420. I sell GNU/Linux CDs. See http://www.copyleft.co.nz
philipc@copyleft.co.nz - prefered. philipc@debian.org
Reply to: