armel fsl-im51 meta packages
tim.gardner at canonical.com
Fri Aug 21 14:43:18 UTC 2009
Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009, Tim Gardner wrote:
>> Here are the meta package relationships (for review):
>> linux-fsl-imx51 --> linux-image-fsl-imx51 --> linux-image-imx51
> Not sure why these are for
>> linux-imx51 --> linux-image-imx51
>> linux-image-imx51 --> linux-image-ABI-imx51
>> linux-headers-imx51 --> linux-headers-ABI-imx51
> These are the usual ones, I think similar to jaunty and they look fine!
>> Note that there are 2 ways to depend on the right image package, e.g.,
>> start with linux-imx51 or linux-fsl-imx51. This appears to be a holdover
>> from the disto meta package (and might be overkill in this case). It
>> gives you a way of depending on the generic flavour for whatever ARCH
>> you are running on.
> Yeah I dont understand the linux-fsl-imx51 ones.
Perhaps a better way of describing linux-fsl-imx51 is that its the
"default" flavour for a particular architecture. Its more applicable in
the x86 world where there are multiple flavours per architecture.
However, in this case, I agree that its overkill and more then a bit
confusing. I'll drop the default choice meta package and re-push shortly.
Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com
More information about the kernel-team