+++ Alexander Shishkin [06-06-08 21:22 +0400]: > On 6/8/06, Wookey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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.
> The other thing is, we don't really want these architectures in > debian, they make sense only for cross-compilation, which is why I > think it's better to keep them in dpkg-cross only. I want us to (eventually) get to a state where Debian is no longer a 'native-build only' distribution. The fact that Embedded Debian (and potentially D-I?) wants these arches is sufficient reason for them to be in dpkg. We need to stop thinking of ourselves as 'not part of Debian'. That said, for arches that will only be cross-built, having them only in dpkg-cross will be perfectly adequate. The only real objection is that 'diverts' is a bit of a hack really - so long as having extra arches in dpkg-architecture in dpkg does not break native builds putting them there is better than having to add a new version with a diversion in dpkg-cross. The same argument probably applies to the other files which currently get diverted (dpkg-buildpackage and dpkg-shlibdeps). Nevertheless it needs more work to get Debian to take cross-building seriously, and we need to prove it can work, so all this is a long-term goal. Doing what we need in dpkg-cross makes a lot of sense right now. 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]
