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. 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). The problem is not trivially solvable and because of that I'd prefer to use a logic that is at least predictable and gives the best result for our primary architectures. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
