On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 21:03:39 +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Andres Salomon wrote: > [snip] >> >> - Dependencies with arch spec for one-arch packages. >> > >> > Right, the control file is full of the packages with control fields like >> > this: >> > >> > Architecture: powerpc >> > Depends: initrd-tools (>= 0.1.78), coreutils | fileutils (>= 4.0), >> > module-init-tools (>= 0.9.13), e2fsprogs (>= 1.35-7) [amd64], palo [hppa], >> > mkvmlinuz [powerpc] >> > >> > The non-powerpc dependencies will probably not break anything, but >> > introduce a lot of additional clutter. I understand that it's easier that >> > way, but having only relevant dependencies listed would be cleaner. And, >> > to improve readability, it would be nice to have all the control file >> > generation logic moved to a separate script, which may be called from the >> > the rules file. >> >> I disagree. I did it this way because I prefer to see exactly what >> architectures are using for their boot loaders, etc. That's just my >> preference. > > The bootloader dependencies need to be per flavour. It makes no sense > to depend on N bootloaders for an architecture where N-1 are unusable > for the specific flavour's kernel image. > >
I'm assuming this is a mips-specific thing, because I haven't heard of the case w/ any other archs where each flavour requires a different bootloader. Anyways, if that is the case, then yes; we'll need to make this per-flavour (gah). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
