Moot points here, as I'm looking into going with Jonathan's latest patchset anyway.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:29:13PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: >On Wednesday 11 February 2009, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> In fact, I'd say the simplest answer would be to pick the first named >> arch. If we're doing source-only then don't run update_tasks at >> all. How does that sound? > >Bad IMO. It means: >- m-a image may be different when built with "i386 amd64" than when built > with "amd64 i386"; this is even more true for "i386 powerpc" versus > "powerpc i386"; IMO the order in which arches are listed should not > change the resulting image It's always likely to, though: imagine if we don't have the space for the two different-arch versions of the last package in the image. The order that we add things is likely going to affect which one is missed out. >- source only set will have packages in in a completely different order > from the corresponding binary set Personally, I don't care in the slightest. In fact, I'd be surprised if the tasks affect the source builds at all right now... For source-only sets, I normally expect them to just be in alphabetical order. Testing that now. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com "You can't barbecue lettuce!" -- Ellie Crane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-cd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
