Re: New `dpkg --print-subarchitecture' option
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Eeek, my mail is far too long, but I hope it is an interesting read
> nevertheless, and, as I said, your (and other peoples) opinion on
> arch-handling would be much appreciated.
Thanks for this excellent discussion. :-)
Yes; I'm very keen to get as many people's ideas as possible. I don't
want to impose my ideas on people, but having said /that/, I am keen
to get potato fixed /fairly quickly/...
I've just been throwing around ideas (and having them thrown back at
me :-) on IRC, and it's given me a few new ideas. I think dpkg is
probably not semantically a very good place to house that information,
though clearly the type of architecture to install (that one very
specific thing), the `primary architecture' if you like of the system,
probably does in some way need to be in dpkg.
Someone did suggest online, though, that perhaps there may not be a
`primary architecture' in future. Confusion confusion...
If you check the debian-arm list you'll see my thoughts. I shall read
your proposal and get to it, and reply to the message fully in due