On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 08:25:35AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > > Build-Depends: bin86 [cpu: i386] > > What does Build-Depends: bin86 [cpu: i386, mips] mean? All i386 cpus > and linux-mips? All i386 cpus and all mips cpus?
All i386 cpus and all mips cpus. > What about [cpu: i386, system: linux]? Is that linux-i386 or any i386 > cpu or any linux system? That syntax is not (yet?) supported by my patch. In any case I'd prefer: [cpu: i386 ...] [system: linux ...] which is easier to parse. However, note the example is equivalent to [i386] currently. > Beware that unless you get this into sarge it can't be used before > etch is released, which means somewhere around 2008-2010. > > Also is it allowed to say "Cpu: mips, mipsel" for mips/mipsel specific > but endian independent files, e.g. kernel docs and patch for > mips/mipsel. > > Last but not least have you looked at DAK and figured out what needs > patching there to support this? These three questions have basicaly the same answer: my patch doesn't modify the way dpkg interacts with DAK. dpkg-genchanges uses Cpu/System logic to determine wether we can build a package, but when generating DEBIAN/control it will add an "Architecture" field set to DEB_HOST_ARCH. So, DAK can work ignorant of this feature. This means the combination you describe won't work any better than currently. (i.e., if you want to avoid data duplication, you'll have to set it to "all". If you want to have it for mips and mipsel, you'll have to accept data duplication). -- .''`. Proudly running Debian GNU/kFreeBSD unstable/unreleased (on UFS2+S) : :' : `. `' http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
