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

Re: dpkg armhf patch acceptance status?

On 14 March 2011 10:47, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
> Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
>> To cut the long story short, I agree with Steve's proposal on this:
>> arm-linux-gnueabi_hf
> What is the purpose of the underscore?  In other words, what is the
> advantage over arm-linux-gnueabihf?  I worry that some tools may not
> like it --- for example, package names like
>  mlton-target-arm-linux-gnueabi_hf
> are not allowed.  Which looks very much surmountable, but just in
> case, it seems prudent to ask.
> Just to be clear, this is not an objection (both triplets look fine to
> me).  I ask in the hope of getting the rationale well documented.

fine, whatever. Nothing personal Jonathan, it just feels extremely frustrating
to always have a point  raised when we're about to finally make a decision -
and yes, it's a very valid point that you raised.

So, yes, ok, finally, let's agree -for the last time I hope- on the


So, can we please, please, close this bug and get on with other issues?



Reply to: