On 07/14/2011 01:47 PM, Daniel Ellison wrote:
> Ah, I suspected that was a typo. That's why I emphasized that I was
> indeed doing that. :) So generally people have a completely separate
> config setup for each architecture? Isn't that a lot of duplication?
I don't know what people generally do. It just seems that if you do both
arches from the same tree there would be a risk that one image is
"tainted" with stuff from the wrong arch if you didn't take care.
I don't think there would be any duplication at all if you kept a master
copy of the config somewhere and just parameterized the architecture, e.g.
ARCHES=i386 lb config
and in auto/config
ARCHES="${ARCHES:-amd64}"
lb config \
--architectures ${ARCHES} \
etc.
> Yes, that's exactly what is being done. I noticed that Daniel's
> auto/clean script removes some files that his auto/config creates.
> That's the only difference between his example and what I use. Our
> auto/config files are necessarily different.
Gotcha.
> Ah, there' a clue! I'm building on a 64 bit laptop with corresponding
> kernel. It doesn't seem to want to pick up *any* dependencies when I
> build i386.I looked at a diff between the logs of both build attempts
> and there's nothing different of any consequence until it fails for i386:
>
> "Some packages could not be installed."
>
> versus the amd64 build:
>
> "The following extra packages will be installed:"
>
> followed by a huge list of all files I specified and their dependencies.
> Does that sound like the behaviour expected from archive issues?
More like a completely broken archive mirror (or broken apt caching proxy).
Ben
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-live-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e1f21fe.8010...@sanctuary.nslug.ns.ca
