Re: Diverting dpkg-architecture
+++ Alexander Shishkin [06-06-08 19:46 +0400]:
> Today's quiestion is: what is the attitude/opinions upon diverting
> dpkg-architecture from dpkg-cross package?
This should be easy to do and I can see no real reason not to do it, at
least for the meantime, until a better solution in dpkg itself is achieved
> The thing is that we (in slind) use some architecture names that are
> missing from upstream dpkg archtable and we are currently keeping our
> locally forked version of dpkg for that very reason that I personally
> dislike. And I'm in the mood for changing this unless there are some
> reasons not to do so.
> Alternatively, is there any chance we can get a number of uclibc-*
> architectures into mainstream dpkg? [archname-related flame
This would be better than the above diversion, but is probably harder to
acheive. Have you asked the maintainers directly, along with a
patch yet? If not then I suggest you do so and see what they say.
I know you asked to avoid name-discussion, but personally I think you will
struggle to get this accepted in mainstream without agreeing a more-complete
scheme for arch-naming. I think arm-uclibc type names are better in the long
term, and more likely to be accepted than uclibc-arm type names, but
ultimately it is up to the dpkg maintainers. A proper summary of the issues
around arch-names on the wiki would be useful in order to have something to
point people at when this issue comes up (precisely to keep discussion
productive and flameage minimised). Such a text is needed as
justification/explanation for the inclusion of the new arches in dpkg
anyway, I suspect. I do not feel sufficiently expert to write such a text
myself, but would help with review.
Aleph One Ltd, Bottisham, CAMBRIDGE, CB5 9BA, UK Tel +44 (0) 1223 811679
work: http://www.aleph1.co.uk/ play: http://www.chaos.org.uk/~wookey/