Re: ARMv4-support in armel/squeeze?

[Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>]

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010, Wookey wrote:
> I see no reason why this shouldn't work well. Personally I am leaning
> towards reduced functionality builds with the same names, but am happy
> to be persuaded the other way if we can see good reasons.

 I'm leaning the other way; I find it more obvious to have a different
 package name.  It's easier to check for presence of a package than a
 package's header.

 Would be feasible either way I guess

 Anyway, we should discuss this when faced with a real example of the
 issue

 I think in the "Stages" terminology, a Bootstrap: yes flag would be too
 restrictive; I'd rather have a Stage: 1 or Build-Stage: 1 flag instead.

-- 
Loïc Minier