Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Actually, we do have equivalent kernel packages for most of the (e.g.) > PowerPC variants. There it is a little more necessary than here, since > the kernels only boot on one flavor. There'll be even more when I > start building kernel packages on a faster machine.
Yes, which is different -- we have 4 kernel-image packages for powepc. chrp, prep, pmac, and apus. All different variants that are different enough to warrent different binary kernel packages. Actually, is that true? It was my understanding that APUS was the only one that needed a different kernel build. Although I guess there are the differences in which kernel image (vmlinux, zImage, etc) is needed to boot your particular subarchitecture. BUT -- this is *different* than the i386 situation! We're not going to start building a different kernel for every powerpc cpu type are we? 601, 603(e), 604(e), 7xx, 74xx, and those are just the non-embedded version. now what do we have? kernel-image-version-<subarch>-<cpu> that's what? 4 subarchs...well, let's say 3, because AFAIK APUS is pretty limited in CPU choice. 3 * 5 cpu variants...15 kernel-image packages for powerpc alone? > Alpha is, I believe, the same way. As is ARM, and possibly sparc... it just seems excessive, _unless_ they're required to boot different subarchs. just IMHO, of course. -- Josh Huber | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |