Re: Autobuilder needed?
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 09:11:58AM -0800, Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 06:01:19PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Not really. For one, the name is hard coded in a lot of places
> > (like build scripts), and I don't really want to fix all these
> > places again. However, the main reason is that there is little
> > gain, because we will still be restricted by the simple
> > Architecture: semantics in dpkg + co.
>
> > The best time to change the names will be when the architecture
> > handling is reworked (if it will ever happen).
>
> Hmm.. What would it take to overcome inertia on this? Since we're
> likely to be the most affected (It possibly an arch-name incompatbile
> way if we go for the kernel: hurd arch: i386 idea) it might be nice to
> see if there's any chance would could do this (assuming it wouldn't
> slow as down by >4 weeks, I'd guess)
The people on debian-bsd are starting to get the netbsd-i386
architecture bootstrapped now, too. It might be worth talking to them,
as they're beginning to run into the same issues.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: