Re: subarch support

2010-07-16 Thread Paul Brook
> > On ARM one could have armelv5, armelv6, armelv7, armelv7neon, .., all > > subarchs armel and crossinstallable. Before someone jumps "what about a > > ARMv6 with NEON but no VFP", obviously some discretion must be used when > > selecting subarchs to be supported. > > I don't think NEON without

Re: subarch support

2010-07-16 Thread Matt Sealey
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 4:11 AM, Riku Voipio wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 03:24:35PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010, Riku Voipio wrote: >> > If dpkg had subarchitecture support, lpia wouldn't have been as big >> > a issue. Ubuntu decided to shortcut and not add support for c

Re: subarch support

2010-07-16 Thread Loïc Minier
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010, Riku Voipio wrote: > On ARM one could have armelv5, armelv6, armelv7, armelv7neon Hmm ok, I kind of prefer the Features/Capabilities idea: encoding that this is an armel package which requires this or that feature at runtime, exposing that in APT, and patching APT to prefe

Re: subarch support

2010-07-16 Thread Riku Voipio
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 03:24:35PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2010, Riku Voipio wrote: > > If dpkg had subarchitecture support, lpia wouldn't have been as big > > a issue. Ubuntu decided to shortcut and not add support for compatible > > subarchs in dpkg, and the result was what it

subarch support

2010-07-13 Thread Loïc Minier
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010, Riku Voipio wrote: > If dpkg had subarchitecture support, lpia wouldn't have been as big > a issue. Ubuntu decided to shortcut and not add support for compatible > subarchs in dpkg, and the result was what it always is when people make > shortcuts... > > Subarchs could also b