On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Brenton Edgar Scott <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 07:13:19 +0000 > Christopher Rogers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think we are going to need any arch support just like archlinux > > has. This is so we can save disk space on source dvd and server. It > > will have do like subfolders like any and then $ARCH folder. The idea > > is to use softlinks from any folder and put then in $ARCH. So > > packages folder will be more like this: > > packages/$ARCH > > packages/any > > > > This way we don't need a cookutils-2.0.tazpkg and > > cookutils-2.0-arm.tazpkg since cookutils should work just fine as one > > package on both systems. This will also be helpful for perl, python, > > and docs packages. > > > > This is cause a idea for now. We will have to see if it can be done > > without breaking everything. > > > > PS We need to add a way to rebuild packages database without wok. I > > have this in my-cookutils. This is just to make it simple to make > > package database. > > The trouble with this will be that we have to rewrite the whole > structure of the packages. Also the packages will grow in size if we > include the compiled binaries (and libraries) for EVERY Arch type. > > -- > SliTaz GNU/Linux Mailing list - http://www.slitaz.org/ > > What packages are you thinking of that would need many different archs? I think most packages can have both a x86 and arm version separate. Christian
