Re: arch: lines, for not-just-linux debian. (was Re: Hurd and architecture)
On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 04:25:26PM +0200, Arthur Korn wrote:
> Brian Russo schrieb:
> [ new semantics of architecture control field ]
>
> What's become of the idea of using dependencies for
> architectures? That scheme could even be extended to
> subarchitectures or hardware features (ie Depends: i386, mmx,
> libc6)
interesting idea, but i dont like the idea of doing it directly with Depends:
theres already what, 4000 packages? 5000? i forget.
you're working with an already limited namespace
throwing more stuff in there is a Bad Idea (tm)
..
on the other hand.. maybe doing it with a HW-Depends: isnt such a bad idea..
but, are there really that many programs out there that *need* mmx, etc?
consider, a sound card is needed for playing audio files (under typical
conditions). so should my package depend on a sound card? i dont think so..
how does my OS know i have a sound card? it checks for working /dev/dsp at
install time or something? what if i dont have the module loaded..
havent recompiled the kernel..etc
besides, you dont necessarily need a sound card to use a package
which plays audio files.. per se.
i dont think the packaging system should try to do everything..
--
Brian Russo <brusso@phys.hawaii.edu>
Debian/GNU Linux <wolfie@debian.org> http://www.debian.org
LPSG "member" <wolfie@lpsg.org> http://www.lpsg.org
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Reply to: