On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Adrian Bridgett wrote: > On Sun, Dec 07, 1997 at 06:20:27PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > > > it's the obvious way... create another architecture tree, binary-i586 > > (gosh, that going to hit hard on the mirror eventually. Time to get yet > > another harddisk for the Debian mirror ;) It's just a minor (I hope) > > modification to dpkg: > > I agree with Andreas that symlinks are unnecessary. We really need a way of > keeping the control file the same (apart from Architecture:) and telling > dpkg to take packages from the binary-i586 directory if they exist. I don't > know the internals of dpkg/dselect/deity at all - how workable is this?
Adrian, could you respond to my follow up to Andreas's post: http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-devel-9712/msg00354.html I feel I made myself a little clearer on the symlink idea in this post. The problem with yours is that you are suggesting a fairly large overhaul of dselect's ftp method (dpkg doesn't do the ftping), when it could be a simple 1 line change from binary-i386 to binary-i586. I admit the symlink solution is ugly, but it requires the smallest development time (considering the ammount of time we need to spend on libc6, this is a good thing) and has the smallest effects on the end user (from the choices I've seen at least). A good time to do this right will be with deity, but that will be a while. And the conversion from what I'm suggesting now to a deity way will probably be painless, remove the symlinks, point deity to binary-i586 first and have binary-i386 as the second choice. Thanks, Brandon ----- Brandon Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "We all know linux is great... it PGP: finger -l [EMAIL PROTECTED] does infinite loops in 5 seconds" Phone: (757) 221-4847 --Linus Torvalds -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
