Re: 2.6.12 upload
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:03:39 +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> 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.
I'm assuming this is a mips-specific thing, because I haven't heard of the
case w/ any other archs where each flavour requires a different bootloader.
Anyways, if that is the case, then yes; we'll need to make this