On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 08:21:19AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> % uname -a > >> Linux dual 2.6.5-amd64 #2 Sun May 9 16:34:33 UTC 2004 x86_64 GNU/Linux > >> ^^^^^^ > > A FTBFS on an architecture that is not yet a release candidate is not an > > RC bug. Presumably, using uname does not cause substantial problems on > > release candidate archs, or this would have come up for discussion long > > ago. Since your policy citation includes no "must" requirements, I > > don't see that this is anything more than an important bug. > It is an architecture of a release candidate: _i386_. > Its just not one of the old CPUs previously used for that > architecture: _x86_64 instead of i?86. > Think of x86_64 as i786. > The problem is that the architecture and the cpu differ and uname > looks at the cpu and not the architecture. Yes, its something new > since the cpu doesn't match the "i?86-*" pattern in the configure > scripts anymore. > But I can live with important. I don't think wishlist is ok as some > maintainer seem to think. Any other thoughts? Ah. In this case, I agree that it's important at minimum. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature