Re: Removing dpkg arch definition for arm64ilp32?

2023-11-11 Thread Lennart Sorensen
On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 06:57:39PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > While scanning the libc-alpha list recently I read [M] that arm64ilp32 > was never upstreamed in Linux nor glibc? If so, I think there's little > point in carrying the arch definitions in dpkg, and I guess that would > not make the

Re: Removing dpkg arch definition for arm64ilp32?

2023-11-11 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 08:36:16PM +, Wookey wrote: >On 2023-11-11 18:57 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: >> Hi! >> >> On Fri, 2023-10-27 at 20:17:21 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: >> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 02:29:30PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> > > Are either of those ports

Re: Removing dpkg arch definition for arm64ilp32?

2023-11-11 Thread Wookey
On 2023-11-11 18:57 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > On Fri, 2023-10-27 at 20:17:21 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 02:29:30PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > Are either of those ports (armeb/arm64ilp32) actually useful / alive > > > at this point? > > > > Not

Removing dpkg arch definition for arm64ilp32?

2023-11-11 Thread Guillem Jover
Hi! On Fri, 2023-10-27 at 20:17:21 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 02:29:30PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > Are either of those ports (armeb/arm64ilp32) actually useful / alive > > at this point? > > Not that I have seen. I didn't think anything other than the IXP