[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 24.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes: > > > > > As in, ISA vs. MCA vs. PCI? :-) > > > > > > No, as in e.g. Intel-PC vs. Sun :-) > > > > Hardly. That would be a case of incompatible CPUs. Or does Sun produce x86 > > machines these days? Nothing is impossible ... > > No, the CPUs are the same in this instance, but the hardware architectures > are different. The types of programs that need this systen are hardware I seem to recall that the case in question (it _was_ Atari vs. Amiga, right?) still allowed you to run _the_very_same_kernel_ on both systems. > specific programs that only work on one kind of hardware architecture, > even though the same CPU is used for more than one hardware architecture. Well, yes. That _is_ the same as ISA/EISA/PCI/VBL/MCA. > > I don't think so. Dependencies are for cases where package A depends on > > package B. Not for hardware dependencies. > > I think in this case it makes sense to use dependencies such as these, > instead of changing control files to use something like: > > CPU: m68k > Architecture: amiga > > and > > CPU: m68k > Architecture: mac > > and > > CPU: ia32 > Architecture: generic-pc > > The dependencies also ensure a range of hardware specific programs can be > included at once, without having to find and select each separately. > > > We don't have any other hardware related mechanism, and I really don't > > think we need one. > > I think Roman's proposal is a very good idea. Well, I don't. > Perhaps you could reconsider after taking into account this additional > information? Actually, I already knew all that. It's _why_ I think this isn't a good idea. MfG Kai -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
