Re: question on hurd-i386 Debian architecture
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:38:52AM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:05:38AM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
> >>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...
> >
> >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?
You're misunderstanding me.
I do understand the need for the -uclibc suffix; however, I fail to see
the need to restructure the hurd-i386 name. It's there, it works, and
heck, it's only a name; changing that name because it looks "wrong"
sounds like fixing a non-problem to me.
The structure of kernel-processor-libc is clear enough for whatever you
want.
> AFAIK, there is currently no support for running Debian with uclibc...
SLIND?
http://wiki.debian.org/EmdebianSlind
--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4
Reply to: