On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 09:59 +0200, Sebastian Reichel wrote: > Hi, > > The current 2.6.39-rc4 package has incomplete armhf support. > Please consider adding the following patch, which adds armhf > support in rules.real. > > -- Sebastian > --- a/rules.real 2011-04-26 01:21:55.000000000 +0200 > +++ b/rules.real 2011-04-28 09:44:36.000000000 +0200 > @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ > # > binary-arch-arch: install-headers_$(ARCH) > binary-arch-arch: install-libc-dev_$(ARCH) > -ifneq ($(filter alpha amd64 armel hppa i386 powerpc ppc64 s390 sh4 > sparc sparc64,$(ARCH)),) > +ifneq ($(filter alpha amd64 armel armhf hppa i386 powerpc ppc64 s390 > sh4 sparc sparc64,$(ARCH)),) > binary-arch-arch: install-tools_$(ARCH) > endif > binary-arch-featureset: install-headers_$(ARCH)_$(FEATURESET) The control file needs to be updated too. > @@ -364,6 +364,7 @@ > > install-image_arm_$(FEATURESET)_$(FLAVOUR)_plain_image \ > install-image_armel_$(FEATURESET)_$(FLAVOUR)_plain_image \ > +install-image_armhf_$(FEATURESET)_$(FLAVOUR)_plain_image \ > install-image_sparc_$(FEATURESET)_$(FLAVOUR)_plain_image \ > install-image_sparc64_$(FEATURESET)_$(FLAVOUR)_plain_image \ > install-image_sh4_$(FEATURESET)_$(FLAVOUR)_plain_image: Yes, we probably should include the kernel in the package! Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part