On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 09:32:04AM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote: > Bill Gatliff wrote: > >David: > > > >David Weinehall wrote: > > > >>Changing the name for the existing ARM arch in Debian is *NOT* an > >>option. It's been stated several times already. > >> > >> > > > >I'm not suggesting that we change the name of anything. I'm only > >suggesting that ARM etch become binary-incompatible with sarge. Which > >I don't think would be unprecedented.
It is. > I'd rather that than have to remember that "armeb" is EABI, while "arm" > isn't; "armel" is, but ... > > Does anyone have any expectation that sarge-built applications will run > without recompilation on etch? Yes. If anything, you'll need it if you want to upgrade. What you're suggesting will break any remote possiblity of a sane upgrade. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
