On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 07:47:58AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 11:54:12AM +0900, Horms wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 12:50:43AM +0200, Max Vozeler wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 12:37:36AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 12:50:47PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: > > > > > Calling it linux-headers-2.6.12-1-i386 > > > > > doesn't work too well for all archs, since we end up w/ > > > > > linux-headers-2.6.12-1-powerpc, which conflicts w/ the name of a > > > > > flavour. > > > > > Suggestions? > > > > > > > > linux-headers-2.6.12-1-all (arch: any) > > > > > > That'd be perfect for my use. > > > Module autobuilding package could then use identical build-depends > > > across all archs and be arch: any themselves. > > > > That sounds fine to me. The only (slight) down side is that it would > > need to include all of the asm-XXX directores, where as the arch > > Nope, it is arch: any, so there will be a version of it for each arch with the > right asm-xxx stuff.
I understand that is the current situation. But I think that the idea is to merge the arch-specific headers package. This would lead us with a common kernel-headers-2.6.12 package across all arches, and then per-flavour kernel-headers-2.6.12-flavour packages, which are largely symlinks. Do you think there is a reason this should not be done? -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
