Re: Debian EABI arm port name: armel
Martin Guy wrote:
Lennert at least didn't see any problem in making armeb EABI in the future
Except that people are already using the armeb repository for real
work. If you EABIfy armeb we end up with two sets of Debian packages
floating around called "armeb" that are binary incompatible, the
avoidance of which was the whole reason for making a new arch at all.
"armel" was the worst choice of them all (except maybe the ones with
Why are hyphens bad? We already have hurd-i386...
hyphens) because "armeb" already exists and means something else.
also because mipsel already exists and is:
1. not EABI
2. different from mips in the endian specifier, not anything else.
IMHO, adding "el" to "arm" (which already has an "el" implicitly)
can not give a clear message about its ABI...
Either we are prevented from making a bigendian ARM EABI repository,
or we have to throw away the existing armeb repository, which I gather
people are using for real work.
armel was the only suggestion that actually had concrete technical
reasons against it instead of just being a question of personal taste!
Who on earth pushed *that* through? Was the Spanish wine that good? ;)
Or does the Extremadura clan speak for the armeb project (and all of
its users) and declare that it is happy to bin all that it has done so
far in favour of a new incompatible arch of the same name?
Not that I really care personally... it just seems stupid!