Bug#673424: Fwd: Bug#673424: bbswitch packaging
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:13 AM, Aron Xu <aron@debian.org> wrote:
[snip]
> Then could you add it to Debian's git repo?
Done. But in the process of building the packages I hit another issue
[1], so please hold off (yet again) on uploading primus until it gets
fixed.
>> As an aside, I made a comment about the current architecture field of
>> bbswitch after Ratesh uploaded 0.6, but I suppose you may have missed
>> them:
>>
>> "Also, why did you opt for Architecture: linux-any for a dkms package?
>> Everything inside the binary package is installed into an
>> arch-independent location, so I think it should probably be arch:all
>> instead, and most dkms packages [1] adhere to being arch:all,
>> including dkms itself. But since you've explicitly moved the package
>> from arch:all to arch:linux-any, I'll just leave it be..."
>>
>
> AFAIK even though bbswitch does not contain any architecture specific
> file, it does not work on other platforms other than linux-any, e.g.
> kfreebsd and hurd. So I moved it to linux-any. (And yes, there is dkms
> support for kfreebsd.)
However, we end up duplicating the package on all linux archs (there's
no difference between the bbswitch package built on i386 vs. amd64, or
mips, or sparc, or ppc...). It just feels redundant to me, but on the
whole it's just a minor issue. I'm fine with leaving it as-is.
How about bumblebee though? That really should be restricted to i386
and amd64 only; Nvidia Optimus is AFAIK only supposed to work with
Intel+Nvidia hardware combinations, so that pretty much limits it to
being used on i386 + amd64.
Vincent
[1] https://github.com/Bumblebee-Project/bumblebee-ppa/issues/11
Reply to: