What is an architecture string, anyway? How does one refer to Debian GNU/Hurd? How does one refer to Mastadon GNU/BSD? How does one refer to Darwin GNU/Mach? If someone can tell me the answer to those questions, I may be able to supply intelligent comments on the issue. In the meantime, consider me neither for nor against such an amendment. Jonathan On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 05:09:08PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote:
On May 29, Matthias Klose wrote:Ok, now that we separate woody and unstable, it is time to think about this. IMO, this is not a gcc only thing. So propably it should be changed in dpkg/policy first. debian-<cpu>-linux-gnu and <cpu>-linux-gnu come to mind as an alternative.IMHO this would be a non-technical (i.e. political) amendment to policy, since there is no good reason for autoconf not to accept <cpu>-linux as the architecture string, particularly when we consider that the choice of <cpu>-linux was to maximize compatibility with other distributions. To put it another way, I formally object to changing policy on this point, particularly since there are are much more important changes [hopefully] coming in terms of architecture handling that need to be resolved first.
--
Geek House Productions, Ltd.
Providing Unix & Internet Contracting and Consulting,
QA Testing, Technical Documentation, Systems Design & Implementation,
General Programming, E-commerce, Web & Mail Services since 1998
Phone: 604-435-1205
Email: djw@reactor-core.org
Webpage: http://reactor-core.org
Address: 2459 E 41st Ave, Vancouver, BC V5R2W2
Attachment:
pgptBo5k_N1th.pgp
Description: PGP signature