Re: Architecture Field
Roger Leigh <rleigh@codelibre.net> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 07:28:31PM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:
>> I've always thought that eliding linux in the architecture was pretty
>> confusing for people, which tend to consider it any-<arch> instead of
>> linux-<arch>. And I added the alias with the intent to be able to
>> possibly fix that in the future, but never bothered pushing for it
>> given that such change is probably too contentious, probably as
>> confusing or more during the transition period, and because at the time
>> there was only hurd as the other non-linux architecture
>> Now that we have few non-linux architectures on the archive it might
>> be time to consider discussing it?
> I was planning on bringing this up last year, but didn't have time
> to persue it. I would certainly agree that migrating to linux-<arch>
> is beneficial and it certainly gets my vote.
It seems like a waste of effort to me, and it would be a fair bit of
effort given that many of the i386 packages are *not* going to work with
hurd-i386.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: