View Single Post
Old 05-09-2012, 10:18 PM   #25
eureka
but forgot what it's like
eureka ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eureka ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eureka ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eureka ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eureka ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eureka ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eureka ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eureka ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eureka ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eureka ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.eureka ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 741
Karma: 2345678
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: north (by northwest)
Device: Kindle Touch
@Nyoxi, there is no need in [ab]using of Architecture field. Please, for the sake of correctness, don't introduce confusing differencies with original .deb format. Anyway, you could just use your own field, say, Kindle-Firmware-Version (or, maybe, X-Kindle-Firmware-Version to never conflict with future official fields). It is totally legal: Control files and their fields - User-defined fields.

BTW, if you want to prevent installation of old incompatible (maybe, unsupported) hacks onto new firmware version, then differrent package repos for different firmware versions is the most sane idea. Checking of relevant control file field could be an additional option (enabled by default, but overridable).

OK, as I see, OE writes into .ipk control file only predefined set of fields and it doesn't support user-defined fields, so [ab]using of Architecture field is your best try with standard OE classes. But, still, it's awful solution.

Did you really already setup OE fully for building of packages for Kindle and problem of differentiating packages for some firmware versions is your last barrier?
eureka is offline   Reply With Quote