On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 09:16:28AM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
> > +Package: libc6-mips32
> > +Architecture: mips mipsel
> > +Section: base
> > +Priority: required
> > +Depends: libc6 (= ${Source-Version})
> > +Conflicts: libc6-mipsn32
>
> We should probably have an consistent naming scheme for o32/n32/n64, and
> avoid _both_ mips32 and mips64 because they are already overloaded in
> their meaning (I would expect a package with -mips32 to be a version
> optimized for MIPS32 ISA). The names "mipsn32" and "mipsn64" may look
> a bit funny, but at least it's clear what they stand for.
Wouldn't -n32 and -n64 be sufficient. The arch is specified by the
architecture field anyway, right?
Cheers,
-- Guido
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature