--- Jeremie Koenig <sprite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> But which of these are part of the "debian architecture" concept ?
> Traditionnaly, it would be os and arch (as in hurd-i386 or bsd-i386).
> Our situation is a bit more complicated since our runtimes sometimes
> touch the "OS" area (this is especially true with DJGPP, which uses
> other binary types, DPMI extending to run 32bit apps under DOS, ...).
>
> I really can't tell you my preference here, since it varies from day
> to
> day ;)
>
> As promised, the URL of marcus' blurb about architectures handling.
> His
> way may some day provide answers to our existential questions. (in
> short: instead of having packages rely upon a debian architecture,
> the
> whole things could be handled by extending the dependency system and
> dropping the architecture field of packages.)
>
> http://master.debian.org/~brinkmd/arch-handling.txt
>
> There was some discussion about this on debian-bsd@xxxxxxxxx :
>
>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2002/debian-bsd-200202/msg00131.html
>
I aggree that we need to start now with a re-specification of the dpkg
system. Basically we need to:
1. Create a better way to share data between perl and C (and other
langauges)
Inline, Swig, IDL come to mind.
2. Create a way to store this package information in a database.
3. Create a way to download and install them.
4. Make all this backwards compatible to debian.
mike
=====
James Michael DuPont
http://introspector.sourceforge.net/
__________________________________________________________________
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Bis zu 100 MB Speicher bei http://premiummail.yahoo.de
|
| 
