sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Robin Cook <rcook AT wyrms.net>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 17:34:58 -0500
The second plan sound like the better way to go to me.
CuZnDragon
Robin Cook
On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 13:51 -0700, Eric Sandall wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As I ran across yet another package that's architecture-dependent[0] today,
> perhaps we should look into how to separate those out of the normal
> grimoires?
> We should also decide how separated we want it.
>
> Easy plan (I like this one the best):
> Create extra grimoires for our non-x86 architectures: currently only ppc
> (but we
> also have a sparc app: silo) and move non-x86-specific packages into their
> respective locales.
>
> More correct plan (this one would make other architectures work better
> [i.e. no
> x86 specific apps to break on their machines]):
> Create extra grimoires for all architecture-specific applications (including
> x86) and move spells which only compile and/or are written specifically for
> those applications to their respective grimoires.
>
> Other ideas (some really bad ;)):
> Create flags for which architectures a package does/does not work on.
> Hard-code Sorcery for the corner cases (using x86 as the "standard" install)
> Ignore this problem (nyet)
> Others?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -sandalle
>
> [0] http://bugs.sourcemage.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5830, along with silo and
> perhaps
> a few others (lilo?).
>
> --
> Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
> eric AT sandall.us PGP: 0xA8EFDD61 | http://www.sourcemage.org/
> http://eric.sandall.us/ | SysAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
> http://counter.li.org/ #196285 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-
[SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Eric Sandall, 05/12/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Robin Cook, 05/12/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, ruskie, 05/12/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Jason Flatt, 05/12/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Eric Sandall, 05/12/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 05/13/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Jason Flatt, 05/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 05/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Eric Sandall, 05/14/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Seth Alan Woolley, 05/14/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Eric Sandall, 05/14/2004
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells, Andrew, 05/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Eric Sandall, 05/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 05/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Jason Flatt, 05/14/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Arwed von Merkatz, 05/13/2004
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Architecture-dependent spells,
Eric Sandall, 05/12/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.