i486 base architecture
Jeff Johnson
n3npq at nc.rr.com
Thu Dec 2 04:10:04 UTC 2004
Nicholas Miell wrote:
>On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 12:07 -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:
>
>
>>OK, to summarize:
>>
>> a) There's a whole lot of pain and not much gain messing with
>>package file names (and file paths and scripts and ... )
>> b) The dependency
>> Requires: cpu(cmov)
>> (or equivalent token) might (*will* imho) be useful identifying
>>packages that actually use, say, cmov.
>> (Note: there's more than cmov that needs marking, generalizing
>>the cpu(...) name space is quite straightforward.)
>> c) Users want a clear call on what package file name to install, as
>>some *.i386.rpm will not run on arch i386, very confusing.
>> d) linuxthreads needs to die! die! die! (but that's just me ;-)
>>
>>Name your poison (if any) please.
>>
>>
>
>What's going to Provide: cpu(cmov)?
>
>
Can be done by simple string in per-arch kernel package right now, although
that doesn't really solve the problem adequately, as dependencies in
packages
are static content. But even a static dependency would be as good as, say
Provides: kernel-abi = 2.6
Prolly the strongest mechanism is to attach a run-time probe dependency
to the "cpu(...)"
name space and parse /proc/cpuinfo for the relevant info. That mostly
works, but
will have problems in chroot's w/o /proc mounted, and will be kinda
weird if/when, say,
the mobo or disk is moved amongst machines, to mention just 2 possible
problems off
the top of my head.
I suspect those deficiencies can be lived with, and are no worse than
existing arch based tests.
It's not like a missing dependency is gonna explode somebody's monitor
or anything
really seriously deadly or risky ... NPTL was far far riskier than what
I am humbly proposing ;-)
73 de Jeff
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list