armel fsl-im51 meta packages

[Tim Gardner]

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.

rtg
-- 
Tim Gardner tim.gardner at canonical.com