Your message dated Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:16:07 +0000
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#172332: [ARCH][DPKG-ARCHITECTURE] should have field for
kernel architecture, where different from Debian and GNU
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Dec 2002 10:29:39 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Dec 09 04:29:37 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from tsv.sws.net.au [203.36.46.2]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18LLAN-0003EV-00; Mon, 09 Dec 2002 04:29:35 -0600
Received: from lyta.coker.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by tsv.sws.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP
id 01C6D92668; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 21:29:32 +1100 (EST)
Received: by lyta.coker.com.au (Postfix, from userid 1001)
id 595C0781; Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:29:25 +0100 (CET)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: dpkg-dev: dpkg-architecture should have a field for the kernel
architecture
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: bug 3.3.10.2
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 11:29:25 +0100 (CET)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0
tests=NO_REAL_NAME,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Package: dpkg-dev
Version: 1.10.9
Severity: normal
On the HPPA architecture all the data that dpkg-architecture returns refers to
"hppa" and makes no reference to "parisc" (as used in the kernel source).
This makes it very inconveniant when searching for a reference to the
architecture in a kernel patch (I currently use "sed -e s/hppa/parisc/").
-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Kernel Version: Linux lyta 2.4.20 #1 Fri Nov 29 12:08:02 CET 2002 i686 unknown
unknown GNU/Linux
Versions of the packages dpkg-dev depends on:
ii binutils 2.13.90.0.14-1 The GNU assembler, linker and binary utiliti
ii cpio 2.5-1 GNU cpio -- a program to manage archives of
ii make 3.80-1 The GNU version of the "make" utility.
ii patch 2.5.4-11 Apply a diff file to an original
ii perl-modules 5.8.0-14 Core Perl modules.
ii perl 5.8.0-14 Larry Wall's Practical Extraction and Report
^^^ (Provides virtual package perl5)
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 172332-done) by bugs.debian.org; 18 Mar 2005 07:16:10 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Mar 17 23:16:10 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from populous.netsplit.com (mailgate.netsplit.com) [62.49.129.34]
(qmailr)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DCBiM-0005AT-00; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 23:16:10 -0800
Received: (qmail 22332 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2005 07:16:08 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO descent.netsplit.com) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by populous.netsplit.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2005 07:16:08 -0000
Subject: Bug#172332: [ARCH][DPKG-ARCHITECTURE] should have field for kernel
architecture, where different from Debian and GNU
From: Scott James Remnant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-NENYe2brPs6KUGP2EhQf"
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:16:07 +0000
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.0
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
--=-NENYe2brPs6KUGP2EhQf
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm going to reject this wishlist bug.
It's a valid concern for dpkg to be able to know what operating system
and CPU it is running on, and we have a convention of choosing names for
those.
It's also a valid concern for dpkg-architecture to be able to supply GNU
triplets for the systems it knows about so software can be built on
them.
I don't think it's a valid concern for the Linux kernel names for the
architectures; we'd also need fields for the FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD,
Darwin and Hurd kernel names for each architecture where they differ
too.
While a reasonably important one, the kernel is just another package, so
I don't think we need to cater for its names just as we don't need to
cater for Perl's configure names, etc.
Scott
--=20
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
--=-NENYe2brPs6KUGP2EhQf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBCOoA2IexP3IStZ2wRAtXHAKCbNBgMjg1JNgr2+2IahCLt3kCRGQCdGiRV
4yXLbOPb3dAY8kue5eMW5X8=
=ps+n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-NENYe2brPs6KUGP2EhQf--
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
