On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 06:01:19PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann 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. That would be ideal. Then nothing would need binNMUs - I would be far less worried about this transition then. > > (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). Hmm.. What would it take to overcome inertia on this? Since we're likely to be the most affected (It possibly an arch-name incompatbile way if we go for the kernel: hurd arch: i386 idea) it might be nice to see if there's any chance would could do this (assuming it wouldn't slow as down by >4 weeks, I'd guess) If this libio upload is relying on me (and I suspect it is) we're already looking like we're pushing March, which means April since I'm offline all of March for my wedding. Tks, Jeff Bailey -- Tofu - The other white meat.
