Re: Sub-architectures in update-modules

To: chris@fluff.org
Cc: debian-arm@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Sub-architectures in update-modules
From: Philip Blundell <pb@tazenda.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2000 18:38:32 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] E13VHFR-0005Ze-00@kings-cross.london.uk.eu.org>
In-reply-to: Message from Chris Rutter <chris@willow.armlinux.org> of "Sat, 02 Sep 2000 17:49:36 BST." <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.21.0009021748380.9788-100000@willow.armlinux.org>
References: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.21.0009021748380.9788-100000@willow.armlinux.org>

>Okay.  Should the subarchitecture be called `footbridge' rather than
>`netwinder', then?

I don't have any strong feelings either way.  "Footbridge" is obviously more 
generic and I guess it's the technically correct choice, but "netwinder" is 
more likely to mean something to the majority of people installing Debian.  I 
imagine there are at least an order of magnitude more 'winders out there than 
there are EBSA-285s and CATS put together.

p.



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Sub-architectures in update-modules
  - From: Chris Rutter <chris@willow.armlinux.org>

References:
- Re: Sub-architectures in update-modules
  - From: Chris Rutter <chris@willow.armlinux.org>

Prev by Date: Re: Sub-architectures in update-modules
Next by Date: Re: Sub-architectures in update-modules
Previous by thread: Re: Sub-architectures in update-modules
Next by thread: Re: Sub-architectures in update-modules
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread