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

Bug#43077: marked as done ([OLD PROPOSAL]: Remove the incompatibility argument from 5.1)

Your message dated Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
with message-id <20010613181654.8E9BD46FD@speedy.private>
and subject line Bug #43077: Remove the incompatibility argument from 5.1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 16 Aug 1999 19:09:44 +0000
Received: (qmail 1943 invoked from network); 16 Aug 1999 19:09:43 -0000
Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (root@
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 16 Aug 1999 19:09:43 -0000
Received: from bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (doko@bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de [])
	by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA22084
	for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Mon, 16 Aug 1999 21:05:24 +0200 (MET DST)
Received: (from doko@localhost)
	by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.1/8.9.0) id VAA03061;
	Mon, 16 Aug 1999 21:05:23 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 21:05:22 +0200 (MET DST)
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: [Proposal]: Remove the incompatibility argument from 5.1
X-Mailer: VM 6.43 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs  Lucid
Message-ID: <14264.24031.456903.552389@bolero>

Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist

> 5.1. Architecture specification strings
> ---------------------------------------

>       If a program needs to specify an _architecture specification string_
>       in some place, the following format has to be used:
>                      <arch>-<os>
>       where `<arch>' is one of the following: i386, alpha, arm, m68k,
>       powerpc, sparc and `<os>' is one of: linux, gnu. Use of _gnu_ in this
>       string is reserved for the GNU/Hurd operating system. .
>       Note, that we don't want to use `<arch>-debian-linux' to apply to the
>       rule `architecture-vendor-os' since this would make our programs
>       incompatible to other Linux distributions. Also note, that we don't
>       use `<arch>-unknown-linux', since the `unknown' does not look very
>       good.

I cannot follow the rationale for the compatibility argument. Most
Debian packages are built without an explicit architecture
string. For most of these packages this doesn't matter, because the
gnu build architecture is only used in error and help messages
(i.e. gdb). Does such a package violate policy?

Giving <arch>-<os> as the gnu build architecture makes these packages
incompatible with other distributions. I don't say, policy contradicts 
itself, but this argument only makes sense, if the this architecture
string is selected for all linux distributions. Do I may miss here
some other arguments?

Other linux distributions do make use of the vendor place of their own 
(redhat, suse) or use `pc' for this field. Given that the Debian way
(<arch>-<os>) already is incompatible, why not use <arch>-debian-<os>, 
so you see the branding of the binaries? The counter argument for this 
is the intended use of the field for the _hardware_ vendor.

Using the vendor field makes sense for identifying test results and
bug reports, where the build info is extracted and sent with the
report to an upstream source mailing list.
Received: (at 43077-done) by bugs.debian.org; 13 Jun 2001 18:17:00 +0000
>From steveg@molehole.dyndns.org Wed Jun 13 13:17:00 2001
Return-path: <steveg@molehole.dyndns.org>
Received: from (speedy.private) [::ffff:] 
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 15AFCN-0003Uz-00; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:59 -0500
Received: by speedy.private (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 8E9BD46FD; Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
To: 43077-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug #43077: Remove the incompatibility argument from 5.1
Message-Id: <20010613181654.8E9BD46FD@speedy.private>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:16:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: steveg@molehole.dyndns.org (Steve Greenland)
Delivered-To: 43077-done@bugs.debian.org

This note is being sent as part of a project to clean out old (> 1yr)
debian-policy proposals. If you disagree with action below please
respond to bug#@bugs.debian.org, not to me, so that the discussion may
be carried out publically in debian-policy. Feel free to re-open the
bug while it's being discussed -- I'm not trying to force any
particular disposition, just taking my best shot at resolving dead

Bug #43077: Remove the incompatibility argument from 5.1

Summary: (Note section is now 12.1) Policy requires that architecture
strings be of the form arch-os, and specifically forbids
arch-vendor-os, "since that would make our programs incompatible with
other Linux distributions". Submitter argues that this is
bogus. Single seconder of proposal contends that some programs
(e.g. Xemacs) require a three part spec string.

Discussion: I don't know enough about how these strings are used to
determine the desirability of this proposal, but figure if it was
important to those who cared, there would be some followup
effort. Re-open or resubmit if desired.

Action: close

Reply to: