Re: dpkg armhf patch acceptance status?
On 14 March 2011 10:47, Jonathan Nieder <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
>> To cut the long story short, I agree with Steve's proposal on this:
> 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
> 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?