[debian-devel:10939] Re: tar-balls for i386 (was Re: Debian Boot Floppies CVS: boot-floppies koptein)

[Taketoshi Sano <xlj06203@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi.

In article <oavh76dv95.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 Adam Di Carlo <adam@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> > > > m68k and powerpc have its own procedure; sparc and alpha is missing
> 
> > > Why can't all architectures have a single procedure they use?
> 
> Hartmut.Koptein@xxxxxxxxxxx (Hartmut Koptein) writes:
> > For architectures with subsarchs, it makes sense to have a tar-ball only
> > with this subarchs. For i386 it makes sense to have it splitted for
> > base12 and base14. For sparc with tftpboot, and later for graphical, and
> > so on. 
> 
> Is the rationale for all these tarballs that a person on prep, say,
> only will have to get common and prep tarballs?
> 
> > The current layout for intel is, all in one directory. For powerpc (as an
> > example) we have  directories in the disks-powerpc/current/
> >  
> >    common/             (base2_2)
> >    documentation/      (html, txt, ...)
> 
> All architectures *should* have a documentation subdir
> 
> >    chrp/               (linux, resc, boot, driv*, ...)
> >    powermac/           (   -"-                       )
> >    prep/               (   -"-                       )
> 
> > If we could have this for all architectures i agree to have only one layout
> > and only one install script.
> 
> Yes, if we can have a layout that makes sense for i386 (which doesn't
> have subarchitectures) as well as for those *with* subarchitectures,
> then we should unify it.

In fact, i386 does have subarchitectures, or should have, I think.

towns and pc9801 series (which were sold in Japan) require the special 
kernel and tools such as fdisk.

They are the different one. of course I don't think we should support 
them for potato, because the time and man-power is too limited, but
if we can, we prepare to support them, or at least we should not make
obstacle to support them, I think.

> How do the subarchitectures interact with the subdirs you are
> proposing (but not here demonstrating) for different disk sizes?
> 
> Perhaps intel could have
> 
>    common/
>    disks1.44/   (note I'm trying to retain 8.3 compat)
>    disks1.20/

If we can, the next to potato has towns1.44 and p98-1.20.

# I don't know both of current their support level much, though.
# I hope someone who knows better them can explain about them.

>    documentation/
>    ...
> 
> But what about m68k, which has subarchitectures *and* different disk
> sizes?  Perhaps:
> 
>    atari-1.20/
>    atari-7.2/  (do these still exist??)
>    mac         (doesn't have different disk sizes)

Thanks.

-- 
  Taketoshi Sano: <sano@debian.org>,<sano@debian.or.jp>,<kgh12351@xxxxxxxxxxx>