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. Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
