-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Alexander Shishkin wrote: > On 6/8/06, Wookey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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 point is that current tendency of dpkg-cross is toward using > dpkg-architecture as the only source of architecture-related strings > (drop %archtable/%crossprefixtable/%whateverelsetable), so we'll at > least have to discuss a better way 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. > 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 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. > There were some threads on this list regarding architecture names, > they can be used as a basis should you (or someone else want to write > a wiki page). > However, no patches to support such names in dpkg were suggested. > Which is why I want to avoid this sort of discussion for now; I just > want uclibc architectures. If a decent implementation shows up, we
Which is not true. This http://www.xs4all.nl/~kurzanov/debian/patches/dpkg-1.13.16-uclibc.patch is there since march, and I've been using this successfully for quite some time. > could bring this topic up once again. Before that happens, I prefer to > think of uclibc architectures as uclibc-$cpu. > Pjotr Kourzanov -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEjSQTESnRZqOfvjYRAnA3AKCRANh0COaOqB5McnitDC9rDg+01ACdEe8t zYg88e0+LzItE3+a0/f3QcY= =8o0r -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
