Re: Re: Re: labeling the CD set
On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 02:35:48AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > Any chance that we can slowly convert from i386
> > to i386-linux in the GNU/Linux context? At least for places where it isn't
> > some complicated operation (like it is for the ftp archive)?
>
> yes it should be started, someone could contact the ftp maintainers?
Actually I was trying to say that it is acceptable everywhere but in the ftp
archive and packaging tools right now. Sorry I goofed that up.
> > I actually don't know what I am talking about, as I never did a CD, nor was
> > I careful about the names the CDs carry. I think your response was quite
> > appropriate. I was thinking it refers to the Debian architecture name
> > "i386" (as binary-i386), in which case the corresponding Debian GNU/Hurd
> > i386 architecture name would be hurd-i386.
>
> why not GNU?
Because I am talking about the right now existing practice or Debian
architecture names. I should note that I did not define this, nor am I in
favour of it.
> say, the BSD port (if someday comes to existance) will be called i386-bsd
It won't. It will be called openbsd-i386/freebsd-i386, see
dpkg-1.9.14/archtable.
> why not calling the GNU port like i386-gnu?
You are asking the wrong person :) I doubt anybody really likes hurd-i386.
I think the original motivation was that i386-gnu was too confusing, because
linux people don't see the difference between i386 and i386-gnu, and think
they can install i386-gnu packages. So hurd-i386 was chosen by someone with
a loose finger on the trigger and now we have the mess.
> just like we shouldn't say i386-linux but i386-linux-gnu, we should name
> this port like i386-gnu or at least i386-hurd-gnu.
i386-hurd-gnu would just be horribly wrong. But otherwise, I concur.
> besides, i think we should find a new name convention.
> In a near future, we'll have 4 different kernels
> (linux, hurd/mach, bsd and win32) in our debian system and
> i think considering all them as ports is a
> bit outwearing, this would make 4*6=24 ports in the distribution.
I support you! I was merely stating current, existing practice.
And I am not happy about it, either.
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd@debian.org
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org marcus@gnu.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
Reply to: