Simon Richter wrote: >Hi Leif, > >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.
Hmmm, maybe. EFI is a bit of a special case in several respects - in some places in Debian (e.g. d-i) it's treated like a sub-architecture. But it's a common sub-architecture across several architectures, which is very different to m68k/atari and the like. On a related front... see other mail. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "...In the UNIX world, people tend to interpret `non-technical user' as meaning someone who's only ever written one device driver." -- Daniel Pead -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/e1xz8pq-0004t6...@mail.einval.com
