Re: Re: Re: labeling the CD set
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001 01:34:03 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
>
> > (gnu/linux is not used
> > because it's a little embarassing to combine slashes and dashes there).
>
> The GNU official name is i386-linux-gnu, which avois the slashes try any
> recent config.guess).
yeah, you're right. i was just talking about Debian's interpretation of the standrads but i prefer the i386-linux-gnu from too.
> > But keep in mind that GNU/Linux users don't call it i386-linux but
> > just i386. Since the GNU flavor is at the same level as the GNU/Linux one,
> > we shouldn't call it i386-gnu because this is assuming GNU/Linux is "normal"
> > or "standard" while we a
>
> This sentence is truncated.
that was up to say that we're mutants but you got the point.
> Any chance that we can slowly convert from i386
> to i386-linux in the GNU/Linux context? At least for places where it isn't
> some complicated operation (like it is for the ftp archive)?
yes it should be started, someone could contact the ftp maintainers?
--
Robert Millan Debian GNU user
zeratul2 wanadoo es http://getyouriso.org/
>
> > If your point is that the term "i386" itself is wrong... well then i'm out of context ;)
>
> I actually don't know what I am talking about, as I never did a CD, nor was
> I careful about the names the CDs carry. I think your response was quite
> appropriate. I was thinking it refers to the Debian architecture name
> "i386" (as binary-i386), in which case the corresponding Debian GNU/Hurd
> i386 architecture name would be hurd-i386.
why not GNU? say, the BSD port (if someday comes to existance) will be called i386-bsd, why not calling the GNU port like i386-gnu?
just like we shouldn't say i386-linux but i386-linux-gnu, we should name this port like i386-gnu or at least i386-hurd-gnu.
(i still hold combining the Hurd and GNU makes a redundancy)
besides, i think we should find a new name convention. In a near future, we'll have 4 different kernels
(linux, hurd/mach, bsd and win32) in our debian system and i think considering all them as ports is a
bit outwearing, this would make 4*6=24 ports in the distribution.
Reply to: