On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 09:13:35AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 09:07, Colin Watson <cjwat...@debian.org> wrote: > > I can't say I really want dpkg to depend on libdebian-installer. It > > seems inappropriate. I also explicitly want the d-i team to carry on > > maintaining that subarchitecture mapping in libdebian-installer, as it's > > quite tightly bound into our codebase. > > I agree partially with it however it seems confusing to have > dpkg-architecture and archdetect on same system. > > Maybe we might build a dpkg-subarchitecture package?
I'd really prefer not to have to rename all the calls to archdetect. It also doesn't really seem appropriate to call it dpkg-* when the dpkg team isn't primarily responsible for maintaining it. -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101215142312.ga12...@master.debian.org
