Quoting Simon Richter (2014-12-11 19:36:19) > On 11.12.2014 19:08, Leif Lindholm wrote: > >> If we could transition this to be able to specify efi-all (or >> whatever) instead of an explicit list of certain architectures, this >> would be a lot more straightforward operation. > >> Would this be useful, desirable, an accident waiting to happen? > > Useful, possibly, but there is no mechanism that could be used or > recycled for that, so it would be an entirely new mechanism in the > package management framework, with a fairly limited use case. > > As this is something that changes rather seldom, I think it would be > overkill.
Perhaps if framing it more generally instead, it would be relevant to work on. How about a control file hint "Arch-Varying:" listing features known to be "crippled" for some of the archs they are actually compiled on? Example that popped up recentently is VLC which upstream supports OSS as fallback for ALSA, and (as I understand it) for Debian is built _without_ support for OSS on Linux archs where ALSA is generally (but possibly not for all use cases) superior. I imagine vlc could be tagged as "Arch-Varying: alsa oss" ...where the "alsa" hint can be expected for any package supporting alsa but working to some degree without it, whereas the "oss" hint for some would be a reason to inspect closer (e.g. check README file for details). To minimize creativity in feature naming we could put names up on a wiki page, and later if/when gaining traction move that to Policy. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
