+++ Alexander Shishkin [06-06-08 19:46 +0400]: > Hi, > > Today's quiestion is: what is the attitude/opinions upon diverting > dpkg-architecture from dpkg-cross package?
This should be easy to do and I can see no real reason not to do it, at least for the meantime, until a better solution in dpkg itself is achieved (see below). > The thing is that we (in slind) use some architecture names that are > missing from upstream dpkg archtable and we are currently keeping our > locally forked version of dpkg for that very reason that I personally > dislike. And I'm in the mood for changing this unless there are some > reasons not to do so. > > Alternatively, is there any chance we can get a number of uclibc-* > architectures into mainstream dpkg? [archname-related flame > discouraged] This would be better than the above diversion, but is probably harder to acheive. Have you asked the maintainers directly, along with a patch yet? If not then I suggest you do so and see what they say. I know you asked to avoid name-discussion, but personally I think you will struggle to get this accepted in mainstream without agreeing a more-complete scheme for arch-naming. I think arm-uclibc type names are better in the long term, and more likely to be accepted than uclibc-arm type names, but ultimately it is up to the dpkg maintainers. A proper summary of the issues around arch-names on the wiki would be useful in order to have something to point people at when this issue comes up (precisely to keep discussion productive and flameage minimised). Such a text is needed as justification/explanation for the inclusion of the new arches in dpkg anyway, I suspect. I do not feel sufficiently expert to write such a text myself, but would help with review. Wookey -- Aleph One Ltd, Bottisham, CAMBRIDGE, CB5 9BA, UK Tel +44 (0) 1223 811679 work: http://www.aleph1.co.uk/ play: http://www.chaos.org.uk/~wookey/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
