Re: ia64 added to svn
On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 03:49:18PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:38:29PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 02:30:50PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > We remove the package from the archive ? I think that the right way for making
> > > this claim is to see what debian-installer installs by default, or to have a
> > > kernel-image-<port> which points at the default kernel.
> >
> > Should the Architecture of kernel source packages be set accordinly too?
> > I suspect not.
>
> No idea what you mean, but i suspect this is not necessarily. The
> kernel-source package is arch: all after all.
Let me try and clarify.
The kernel-source-2.4.26 has
Architecture: source all
To me this implies that it is reasonable to expect that it will
compile on all ports. But in the case of m68k (and possibly others)
this is not the case. And as I have concluded from discussion elsewhere
on this list, is unlikely to be resolved in the forseeable future.
My question is, do we have a way to tell a user, this
is a source package, go for your life, but we know
you are going to have problems on m68k (and...).
Or is it enough that it is a source package and implicitly
may or may not be able to be used out of the box to produce
something on architecture x, y and z?
What I am really getting at is the next time an m68k user
downloads kernel-source-2.4.26 and tries to build a kernel from
it, it will likely fail for them too. It seems reasonable that
they would then open up a bug. Which we will probably then mark
as wontfix. It would be nice to make it more obvious to the
end users that it isn't going to work form the outset.
--
Horms
Reply to: