On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 09:11:58AM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote: > On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 06:01:19PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > 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)
The people on debian-bsd are starting to get the netbsd-i386 architecture bootstrapped now, too. It might be worth talking to them, as they're beginning to run into the same issues. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
