No, the CPUs are the same in this instance, but the hardware architectures
are different. The types of programs that need this systen are hardware
I seem to recall that the case in question (it _was_ Atari vs. Amiga,
right?) still allowed you to run _the_very_same_kernel_ on both
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
I seem to recall that the case in question (it _was_ Atari vs. Amiga,
right?) still allowed you to run _the_very_same_kernel_ on both systems.
This has nothing to do with the kernel, please do not confuse the issue.
specific programs that only
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 25.12.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
I seem to recall that the case in question (it _was_ Atari vs. Amiga,
right?) still allowed you to run _the_very_same_kernel_ on both systems.
This has nothing to do
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 24.12.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
As in, ISA vs. MCA vs. PCI? :-)
No, as in e.g. Intel-PC vs. Sun :-)
Hardly. That would be a case of incompatible CPUs. Or does Sun produce x86
machines these
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roman Hodek) wrote on 22.12.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As in, ISA vs. MCA vs. PCI? :-)
No, as in e.g. Intel-PC vs. Sun :-)
Hardly. That would be a case of incompatible CPUs. Or does Sun produce x86
machines these days? Nothing is impossible ...
Ok, you're right that we
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roman Hodek) wrote on 18.12.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Is this any different from Intel packages that only make sense when
you have specific hardware installed? We have several of those.
It's not just that you have different hardware installed, but you have
a totally
As in, ISA vs. MCA vs. PCI? :-)
No, as in e.g. Intel-PC vs. Sun :-)
Ok, you're right that we could leave the user on his own and tell him
just don't install packages you can't make any use of, but I think
we can do it better... Aren't dependencies exactly for that purpose?
I.e., keep the user
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roman Hodek) wrote on 17.12.97 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
There are now some packages for m68k that make sense only on a
specific machine type. Currently we have such packages only for Atari,
but others can follow easily. The packages are nvram and setsccserial,
and atari-fdisk
Is this any different from Intel packages that only make sense when
you have specific hardware installed? We have several of those.
It's not just that you have different hardware installed, but you have
a totally different kind of computer...
Roman
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST:
There are now some packages for m68k that make sense only on a
specific machine type. Currently we have such packages only for Atari,
but others can follow easily. The packages are nvram and setsccserial,
and atari-fdisk is about to be debianized.
Those packages are currently Architecture: m68k,
Roman Hodek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are now some packages for m68k that make sense only on a
specific machine type. Currently we have such packages only for Atari,
but others can follow easily. The packages are nvram and setsccserial,
and atari-fdisk is about to be debianized.
On 17 Dec 1997, Brederlow wrote:
Roman Hodek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are now some packages for m68k that make sense only on a
specific machine type.
What about the packages that are arch-all that can be installed on any
arch but only make sense on one or two architectures.
This sounds exactly the same as the i386 vs Pentium thing. It's the
name BASE architecture but different... implementations?
Yep, sounds similar. I haven't closely followed followed the Pentium
discussion (too much traffic here...), but it's obvious that there are
some parallels.
One
13 matches
Mail list logo
