On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 08:53:53AM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote: > Since we're on the topic, please let us know what the best way to do > this is. We're essentially re-creating the hurd-i386 arch - The new > .debs will be binary incompatible with the old ones.
At one occasion the old tree was deleted by the ftp admins. This helps to ensure that no cruft remains. I would not object against this, if it is mirror-friendly. This was before package pools. > (In fact if we > could pick a less stupid name, this would be a great time to do it) Not really. For one, the name is hard coded in a lot of places (like build scripts), and I don't really want to fix all these places again. However, the main reason is that there is little gain, because we will still be restricted by the simple Architecture: semantics in dpkg + co. The best time to change the names will be when the architecture handling is reworked (if it will ever happen). > Talking to other porters, it > sounds like binNMUs can cause subtle dependancy problems anyway. Indeed. Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
