Re: 2.6.12 upload

[Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>]

Andres Salomon wrote:
[snip]
> >> - Dependencies with arch spec for one-arch packages.
> > 
> > Right, the control file is full of the packages with control fields like 
> > this:
> > 
> > Architecture: powerpc
> > Depends: initrd-tools (>= 0.1.78), coreutils | fileutils (>= 4.0), 
> > module-init-tools (>= 0.9.13), e2fsprogs (>= 1.35-7) [amd64], palo [hppa], 
> > mkvmlinuz [powerpc]
> > 
> > The non-powerpc dependencies will probably not break anything, but 
> > introduce a lot of additional clutter. I understand that it's easier that 
> > way, but having only relevant dependencies listed would be cleaner. And, 
> > to improve readability, it would be nice to have all the control file 
> > generation logic moved to a separate script, which may be called from the
> > the rules file.
> 
> I disagree.  I did it this way because I prefer to see exactly what
> architectures are using for their boot loaders, etc.  That's just my
> preference.

The bootloader dependencies need to be per flavour. It makes no sense
to depend on N bootloaders for an architecture where N-1 are unusable
for the specific flavour's kernel image.


Thiemo