Re: ia64 added to svn

[Horms <horms@verge.net.au>]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 11:03:45AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:06:35PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > 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)
> 
> No, this is not, and has never been the case. This only means that it is an
> arch independent package, and thus there is only one binary package for all
> arches. Furthermore, the actual source tarball is usefull on all arches, even
> if it doesn't build, or work or whatever, be it only for those working on
> fixing it, or applying a patch (like a port patch) or coing cross compilation
> (and i used to do m68k->ppc cross compilation back then :)

Thanks for the clarification. I am happy with this situation now
that I understand it better.

-- 
Horms