Carsten Hey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> You're probably correct, but the solution would be to drop this tag >> entirely. This tag is warning about precisely that case -- the >> presence of a normal but unofficial architecture.
> what about typos like alhpa instead of alpha? We'd still catch completely unknown architectures. Currently, lintian has three different classifications of architectures: known architectures that are officially supported by the project, semi-official architectures supported by dpkg but not part of the main archive, and completely unknown ones. It issues a W: tag for the last and an I: tag for the second. My proposal is to eliminate the I: tag and only have "architectures supported by dpkg" and "completely unknown architectures." I don't think the I: tag is ever helpful. armel was already included in the list of dpkg-supported architectures. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
