On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 07:02:18PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > 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. OTOH, now (before it's a release-candidate architecture) would be the time to change it -- *if* it warrants changing. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature