Re: question on hurd-i386 Debian architecture

[Pjotr Kourzanov <peter.kourzanov@xs4all.nl>]

Riku Voipio wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:38:52AM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
>  
>
> > Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >    
> >
> > > Not being a dpkg maintainer, I find this to be a gratuitous change for
> > > no good reason (other than "it looks a bit better"). I don't see what
> > > point it would serve.
> > >      
>
>  
>
> > Maybe the ability to run Debian on embedded or old systems?
> > AFAIK, there is currently no support for running Debian with uclibc...
> >    
>
> Wouter is referring to the naming change. Indeed I agree, changing
> naming conventions is troublesome, and discussions about what naming
> convention "looks good" are endless. Essentially it's a 
> "color of the bikeshed" [1] issue.
>  
Yes, we whould not change names of existing archs. However,
for new ones, we better choose suitable names.

> As for debian with uClibc, there is SLIND[2] which uses 
> uclibc-i386 / uclibc-arm/ uclibc-powerpc and i386-uclibc[3] alioth
> project, which is quite staganant ATM and hasn't selected arch name yet.
>
> [1] http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/16.19.shtml
> [2] http://www.emdebian.org/slind.html
>  

This one looks dead.

> [3] http://alioth.debian.org/projects/i386-uclibc/
>  
There were no updates to this one since october. Is it still alive?