Bug#673424: Fwd: Bug#673424: bbswitch packaging
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Vincent Cheng <vincentc1208@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
Do you think it's time to upload bumblebee?
>>> 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.
I guess yes? Don't know other people's opinion.
--
Regards,
Aron Xu
Reply to: