Package: hexagon-dsp-binaries Followup-For: Bug #1126262 > 3) A user who doesn't know about the specifics of Debian's package > dependency graph should be able to install something that, if it happens > to require hexagon-dsp-binaries, automatically causes apt to install > something that works. Probably this means that we need to pull in > binaries for all boards by default, since the current design of apt and > dpkg doesn't support hardware-specific dependencies.
Sounds good, yes. And it quite matches other hardware-specific options (e.g. in X11 drivers). > Consider for example the upcoming fastrpc-tests package. I think this > should depend on the correct parts of hexagon-dsp-binaries, and it > should work for all three use cases above. Right now, it depends on the > hexagon-dsp-binaries metapackage, which works for cases 1 and 3 above, > but not case 2. There is nothing direct to depend upon that would allow > case 2 except a very long alternates line that would be difficult to > maintain. Why is it only about the fastrpc-tests? The fastrpc daemon itself should also depend on the Hexagon DSP libraries (it can't do a lot without the fastrpc_shell_N). > Package: hexagon-dsp-binaries-all > Depends: hexagon-dsp-binaries-thundercomm-rb3gen2, > hexagon-dsp-binaries-thundercomm-rb1, ... Yes, please. An MR on Salsa would be appreciated. > We're going to need to ship 00-hexagon-dsp-binaries.yaml. FastRPC > depends on this now. There isn't currently an obvious place to put it. I'm fine either way: either a separate hexagon-dsp-binaries-config package or per-board config package. -- With best wishes Dmitry
