> > No, the CPUs are the same in this instance, but the hardware architectures
> > are different. The types of programs that need this systen are hardware
>
> I seem to recall that the case in question (it _was_ Atari vs. Amiga,
> right?) still allowed you to run _the_very_same_kernel_ on both s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 25.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>
> > I seem to recall that the case in question (it _was_ Atari vs. Amiga,
> > right?) still allowed you to run _the_very_same_kernel_ on both systems.
>
> This has nothing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> I seem to recall that the case in question (it _was_ Atari vs. Amiga,
> right?) still allowed you to run _the_very_same_kernel_ on both systems.
This has nothing to do with the kernel, please do not confuse the issue.
> > specific programs that onl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> > > As in, ISA vs. MCA vs. PCI? :-)
> >
> > No, as in e.g. Intel-PC vs. Sun :-)
>
> Hardly. That would be a case of incompatible CPUs. Or does Sun produce x86
> machines these days? Nothing is impossible ...
No, the CPUs are the same in this instanc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 24.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>
> > > > As in, ISA vs. MCA vs. PCI? :-)
> > >
> > > No, as in e.g. Intel-PC vs. Sun :-)
> >
> > Hardly. That would be a case of incompatible CPUs. Or does Sun produce x86
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roman Hodek) wrote on 22.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > As in, ISA vs. MCA vs. PCI? :-)
>
> No, as in e.g. Intel-PC vs. Sun :-)
Hardly. That would be a case of incompatible CPUs. Or does Sun produce x86
machines these days? Nothing is impossible ...
> Ok, you're right th
> As in, ISA vs. MCA vs. PCI? :-)
No, as in e.g. Intel-PC vs. Sun :-)
Ok, you're right that we could leave the user on his own and tell him
"just don't install packages you can't make any use of", but I think
we can do it better... Aren't dependencies exactly for that purpose?
I.e., keep the use
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roman Hodek) wrote on 18.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Is this any different from Intel packages that only make sense when
> > you have specific hardware installed? We have several of those.
>
> It's not just that you have different hardware installed, but you have
> a tota
> Is this any different from Intel packages that only make sense when
> you have specific hardware installed? We have several of those.
It's not just that you have different hardware installed, but you have
a totally different kind of computer...
Roman
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roman Hodek) wrote on 17.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There are now some packages for m68k that make sense only on a
> specific machine type. Currently we have such packages only for Atari,
> but others can follow easily. The packages are nvram and setsccserial,
> and atari-
> This sounds exactly the same as the i386 vs Pentium thing. It's the
> name BASE architecture but different... implementations?
Yep, sounds similar. I haven't closely followed followed the Pentium
discussion (too much traffic here...), but it's obvious that there are
some parallels.
> One solut
On 17 Dec 1997, Brederlow wrote:
> Roman Hodek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > There are now some packages for m68k that make sense only on a
> > specific machine type.
>
> What about the packages that are arch-all that can be installed on any
> arch but only make sense on one or two architec
Roman Hodek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There are now some packages for m68k that make sense only on a
> specific machine type. Currently we have such packages only for Atari,
> but others can follow easily. The packages are nvram and setsccserial,
> and atari-fdisk is about to be debianized.
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
