Re: [proposal] subarchitectures (was: Bug#198158: architecture i386 isn't i386 anymore)
On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 11:40:21AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Michael Banck (firstname.lastname@example.org) [030626 08:20]:
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 06:50:54PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > What does oppose us to make subarchitectures quite more easy than now?
> > > (That would also be useful for the AMD Opteron and the like that could
> > > use normal i386-code, but can profit from optimized code.)
> > Nothing opposes it, we're just missing something: The correct patch.
> I would start with a proposal first before writing code. Below is a
> draft, comments to it?
Sorry, I don't have time right now to look at it. But did you consider
marcus' several years old arch-handling proposal?
Also, please note that at least half of the dpkg-maintainers don't read
-devel, you probably want to post this to -dpkg. Incidently, there is a
proposal and patch by Gerhard Tonn for handling lib64 under