> >> The xml for individual packages occasionally > >> contains architecture dependencies. It would > >> be nice to abstract these out to the extent > >> possible - perhaps to definitions in > >> entities/packages? > > > > Yes!, I think that is the way to go. > > definately, although it does not help us with things like > bin86 which ia32 > needs but none of the other arches do.
There are going to need to be some ways to handle architecture specifics beyond what I mentioned above. For example, before an Itanium kernel tree can be used for anything (including, I think, generating the headers), a rather massive ia64-specific patch has to be applied. I don't hear any noises that that's going to change, they're still generating such patches for 2.5.18 or whatever that line is up to. I guess one approach might be to have some of the files presented as foo.xml.in and munched into the right form for the target processor by the configure script. I gather conditional code is not an option :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
