Re: fis-gtm

[Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu>]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 07:47:01PM +0200, Thorsten Alteholz wrote:
>>  If you really think that this makes
>> sense I would make the question lower priority so that normal users
>> will simply go with the default name.
>
> Oops, you are right. I forgot to change it back after some testing.

That's fine than.  Having the chance to tweak the user without
disturbing usual default installs is perfect.

> Yes, that is somewhat ok. In the initial package, there are some binaries 
> included that only run on that architecture. So configure must fail.

OK.

> Hmm, my original plan was to create two packages, one for i386 and the  
> other for amd64. Despite "Architecture: any" in the source control file, 
> the Architecture:-line of the binary package control file contains i386. 
> So I am afraid that just renaming the package might have some unwanted 
> side effects.

You are right - forget my suggestion.

>> I have no real clue how to fix this.  It might be an idea if we
>> provide both (i386 and amd64) initial tarballs in one source tarball
>> and let the rules file detect which one to use depending from the
>> architecture the package is builded on.
>
> As upstream provides two tar files, isn't it better to also create two  
> packages out of them?

Well, there is no written law that we have to stick to this.  While it
is a usual thing to do to follow upstream with his file layout of the
release tarballs, there are several examples where we derive from this.
There just should be good reasons to do so - IMHO this is the case here.

>> Kind regards from Banja Luka (just arrived)
>
> I hope the weather is not as bad as here ..

For me good weather in this area means belwo 25°C.  Currently it is
good weather because it is cloudy. :-)

Kind regards

      Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de