Re: dpkg armhf patch acceptance status?

[Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> What is the purpose of the underscore?  In other words, what is the
> advantage over arm-linux-gnueabihf?  I worry that some tools may not
> like it --- for example, package names like
> 
>  mlton-target-arm-linux-gnueabi_hf
> 
> are not allowed.  Which looks very much surmountable, but just in
> case, it seems prudent to ask.
> 
> Just to be clear, this is not an objection (both triplets look fine to
> me).  I ask in the hope of getting the rationale well documented.

 I think the underscore was originally proposed for multiarch triplets;
 Guillem sent a patch without underscore upstream.  I've heard an
 independent suggestion to use an underscore from GCC upstream, so it
 seems underscore might well end up in this triplet.

 Note that the amd64 triplet already uses an underscore (in the CPU part
 though): x86_64-linux-gnu, so I don't think the presence of underscore
 should be a new technical issue introduced by armhf.  It's probably up
 to the GCC upstream folks to decide on this.

   Cheers
-- 
Loïc Minier