Re: question on hurd-i386 Debian architecture

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

Goswin von Brederlow wrote:

> Pjotr Kourzanov <peter.kourzanov@xs4all.nl> writes:
>
>  
>
> > Riku Voipio wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 03:49:01PM +0100, Peter Kourzanov wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > >
> > > > Can anyone please explain why this architecture is named hurd-i386
> > > > rather that i386-hurd?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >        
> > > because dpkg-architecture has a line like this:
> > >
> > > return "$os-$cpu";
> > >
> > > older dpkg (of sarge age) was more flexible, so likely the
> > > hurd naming decission was not done because of dpkg-architecture,
> > > but rather the other way around.
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > That's weird, naming a architecure because of a seemingly random
> > choice made in a script. But OK, that's fair enough...
> >
> > 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.
> >    
>
> Which is linux-i386-uclibc. Fits perfectly with os-arch.
>  
os-arch-libc. OK.

> You could argue to use the gnu tripplet style though: arch-os-libc.
>  
No, that does not matter much, and would require changing e.g.,
hurd-i386.

> MfG
>        Goswin
>
>