[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: question on hurd-i386 Debian architecture

Martin Michlmayr wrote:

* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <he@ftwca.de> [2006-03-13 00:04]:
I am adding some additional archs to my local installation like
i386-uclibc, which makes hurd-i386 an exception to the rule of
having the CPU arch first and the OS name the next.
There's also kfreebsd-{i386,amd64}, so why don't you use uclibc-i386?

Actually, I disagree.  To me it makes perfect sense the way it
currently is, namely:

kernel and libc can be empty when they're the default (Linux and
glibc respectively).

The uclibc port uses Linux so I think i386-uclibc is fine.  There
could be kfreebsd-i386-uclibc in the future, I suppose, or something
like that.
Makes sense. I would prefer however to stick with gcc's convention
of having arch(-vendor)-kernel-libc, however, kernel-arch(-vendor)-libc is also

Dpkg maintainer(s), what do you think is the correct procedure for
additing these things i.e., extra -vendor and -libc fields? I already
have a patch for dpkg package which adds-in uclibc variants...

Reply to: