On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:10:56AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >Bad IMO. It means:
>> >- m-a image may be different when built with "i386 amd64" than when
>> > built with "amd64 i386"; this is even more true for "i386 powerpc"
>> > versus "powerpc i386"; IMO the order in which arches are listed
>> > should not change the resulting image
>>
>> It's always likely to, though: imagine if we don't have the space for
>> the two different-arch versions of the last package in the image. The
>> order that we add things is likely going to affect which one is missed
>> out.
>
>That's an edge case. I'm talking about packages going missing completely
>because they are e.g. available for i386, but not for powerpc. Which
>means that if you run update_tasks based on powerpc the packages just
>won't be there on the early CDs.
Oh, sure.
>As I've mentioned before in this thread the only correct solution is to
>somehow run update_tasks for each arch and merge them. But that will only
>result in a really stable list if the merge is effectively done
>line-by-line (a package that is listed 5th for a task for the second arch
>should not end up below a package that is listed 200th for the same task
>for the first arch, or even worse after the packages for all tasks for
>the first arch).
I think I already cope with that, actually: I saw this problem coming
when I started doing multi-arch CDs. If you look at the code in
tools/merge_package_lists you'll see how that works.
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com
< sladen> I actually stayed in a hotel and arrived to find a post-it
note stuck to the mini-bar saying "Paul: This fridge and
fittings are the correct way around and do not need altering"
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
