On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 15:32 +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: > > > On Sat, 22 Jan 2005, Scott James Remnant wrote: > >> 4) Add a dependency on autotools-dev; promoting it all the way from > >> optional to Essential. > > dpkg-dev is Standard, so autotools-dev would only need to be Standard, > wouldn't it? > Yes, sorry; had just read Robert Millan's "put dpkg-architecture in dpkg" bug and got confused. > > (5) dpkg-architecture are static values, known to all arches that are > > supported. One can: > > > > 5a) Use config.sub at build time (autotools-dev build dep, if one wants), > > to get the full GNU arch string > > > > OR > > > > 5b) Just hardcode it like the rest. I don't mean runtime-add a -gnu, I mean > > actually using config.sub at the time an arch is added to check what the > > correct string is, and add that to dpkg. > > > > I'd prefer this, if only for the reason that the non-canonical GNU > type is not very useful... > It's useful to pass to anything that accepts a GNU type, because they either understand non-canonical types or canonicalise types before using them. It's suitable for "configure", and good enough for gcc; seems reasonable to me. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Description: This is a digitally signed message part