Michael, I'd like to emphasize that I'm not sure about using architecture across all kerneltypes either. Maybe that "if" (we'd like to...) should've been more pronounced.
But this way we can cover all the bases. And yeah, pure i386, that's unlikely. Thanks :) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Homer" To: gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org Subject: Re: [gobolinux-devel] [ANNOUNCE] Scripts 2.9.6rc1, Compile 1.11.4rc1 Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:37:50 +1300 On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 10:02 AM, David Karell wrote: > Hi! > Why is this at all needed you may ask? Well, if at some time in the future > we'd like to have common patches for x86 processors, they should probably > look into either i686 or x86_64 directory (depending on 32-bit or 64-bit > architecture). So, this is all about future-proofing Scripts. > > If you think this is a really bad idea, you can always reach me on irc or, > of course, reply to this email. For the record, I still do think so, but I have been roundly shouted down, so carry on. The linked patch seems like a reasonable way of carrying that out, if we're willing to forgo ever having packages for i386 (and it seems unlikely to happen at this point). The other cosmetic patch is fine too. -Michael _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com
_______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
