On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 10:03:41PM -0400, Jurij Smakov wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2005, Christian T. Steigies wrote: > > > >Can I build kernel-headers-2.6.11-1 as an m68k.deb or does that conflict > >with other arches? > >Do I need a separate kernel-headers-2.6.11-1-m68k package? m68k is doing > >fine without any 2.6 kernel headers so far, the buildds use a generic k-h > >package. > >I don't think we need subarch kernel-headers, so I silently skip your third > >level. > >When I built kernel-headers-2.6.11-1, I got a 5MB package, which I find > >rather big. It includes include/asm-* for all 11 subarches or maybe more, > >do > >I really need to include all them in m68k package or can I remove > >everything > >but m68k? Can this be an option in kernel-package? Or maybe is it already? > > > >Christian > > Hi Christian, > > Those are very good questions. I think, we should start working towards > some kind of kernel policy, which would mandate what goes where. Now it is > one hell of a mess with every architecture doing something slightly > different. > > For example on i386 we have the following packages for 2.6.11: > > k-h-$(version)-$(abiname) > k-h-$(version)-$(abiname)-i386 > k-h-$(version)-$(abiname)-$(flavour)
That is all fine and nice, but you didn't explain to me how you did solve the case where the flavour is also named -i386. Also, i fail to understand what the difference between k-h-$(version)-$(abiname) and k-h-$(version)-$(abiname)-i386 is. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
