Hi, On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 13:13:26 +0200, Jussi Hakala wrote: > Guillem Jover wrote: >> Just to clarify, the version in etch is not going to be updated for >> this anyway, that's Debian release policy. > > Didn't expect it would. > > I issued a bug because I thought it would be nice to have a record of > etch dpkg-architecture breaking when the toolchain advertises itself as > an uclibc toolchain.
Sure, no problem with that, it's always good to have bugs on file, but the only problem here is trying to overload the meaning of armel for a different architecture. >>> Meanwhile, made this horrid patch to get the architecture recognized >>> as armel, as with the ordinary arm+glibc equivalent. >> >> This is the completely wrong approach, I'd recommend you don't do that >> in Maemo either. > > I realize that. > > As I said earlier, the patch here is a quick (and ugly) fix to > circumvent a problem with dpkg-architecture searching specifically for > -gnueabi in architecture strings. > > It's not intended as a solution. It was a way to create armel packages > which are built against uclibc instead of breaking down completely. The proper fix (if desired) is to create a name for this supposed uclibc based architecture. Then those warnings go away by themselves. I'm tempted to close this bug report unless there's someone starting a real Debian arm eabi uclibc port. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
