[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Single kernel package discussion.



On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 10:03:41PM -0400, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2005, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> >
> >Can I build kernel-headers-2.6.11-1 as an m68k.deb or does that conflict
> >with other arches?
> >Do I need a separate kernel-headers-2.6.11-1-m68k package? m68k is doing
> >fine without any 2.6 kernel headers so far, the buildds use a generic k-h
> >package.
> >I don't think we need subarch kernel-headers, so I silently skip your third
> >level.
> >When I built kernel-headers-2.6.11-1, I got a 5MB package, which I find
> >rather big. It includes include/asm-* for all 11 subarches or maybe more, 
> >do
> >I really need to include all them in m68k package or can I remove 
> >everything
> >but m68k? Can this be an option in kernel-package? Or maybe is it already?
> >
> >Christian
> 
> Hi Christian,
> 
> Those are very good questions. I think, we should start working towards 
> some kind of kernel policy, which would mandate what goes where. Now it is 
> one hell of a mess with every architecture doing something slightly 
> different.
> 
> For example on i386 we have the following packages for 2.6.11:
> 
> k-h-$(version)-$(abiname)
> k-h-$(version)-$(abiname)-i386
> k-h-$(version)-$(abiname)-$(flavour)

That is all fine and nice, but you didn't explain to me how you did solve the
case where the flavour is also named -i386.

Also, i fail to understand what the difference between
k-h-$(version)-$(abiname) and  k-h-$(version)-$(abiname)-i386 is.

Friendly,

Sven Luther



Reply to: