On 17 Dec 1997, Brederlow wrote: > Roman Hodek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > There are now some packages for m68k that make sense only on a > > specific machine type. > > What about the packages that are arch-all that can be installed on any > arch but only make sense on one or two architectures.
This sounds exactly the same as the i386 vs Pentium thing. It's the name BASE architecture but different... implementations? One solution could be creating more distributions, like binary-i586, binary-atari, binary-amiga, and simlink shared files from, e.g., binary-i586 back to binary-i386. This complicates things a bit, since a i386 package has to get an entry on i586, just like an all package gets and entry on all the architectures, but only if a i586 specific package isn't already there. I think it would be the same with the m68k stuff. The alphas won't be as easy, I think. For the "not really arch-all" part... could overrides be used/extended for this? Like in "the package says it's arch-all but it's really just arch-i386 and arch-sparc" In the particular case of i586, if done carefully, this wouldn't impact mirrors much. (Carefully = don't just compile i586 optimized code because it's possible) Marcelo. -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
