On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 07:19:08AM -0700, Chris Tillman wrote: > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 09:37:35AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 05:23:21PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 11:33:44AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > > > anna will use a new control field in the next version. it is called > > > > subarchitecture and will restrict the selection of this package only if > > > > it runs on this subarch. > > > > > > the Subarchitecture field includes several whitespace seperated subarch > > > specification. > > > > > > example: > > > Architecture: powerpc > > > Subarchitecture: powermac_newworld > > > > > > currently specified are: > > > for powerpc: > > > - powermac_oldworld > > > - powermac_newworld > > > > oldpmac and newpmac where traditionnally used. Or maybe simply pmac and > > oldpmac. > > I'd definitely vote for the more explicit versions with the name in > hierarchical order, even as far as powerpc_powermac_oldworld. They've > changed often enough that there is no standard. Then you could follow > the pattern with powerpc_chrp_rs6k etc, and these would become machine > parseable.
Ok, let's do it that way then. Bastian, how will you handle that ? Will libdi be able to understand that powerpc_powermac is both of powerpc_powermac_oldworld and powerpc_powermac_newworld, or something similar ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
