armel fsl-im51 meta packages
tim.gardner at canonical.com
Fri Aug 21 14:56:24 UTC 2009
Tim Gardner wrote:
> 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.
Here is the final meta graph:
linux-source-fsl-imx51 --> linux-fsl-imx51-source-ABI
linux-headers-imx51 --> linux-headers-ABI-imx51
linux-imx51 --> linux-image-imx51 --> linux-image-ABI-imx51
Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com
More information about the kernel-team