Re: 2.6.12 upload
Andres Salomon wrote:
> >> - 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
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.