Re: Sparc release requalification

[Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 04:33:32PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:55:24PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > On 19.08.2009 13:42, Bastian Blank wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:16:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >>> I did speak with Martin Zobel at Debconf on how to get there, having two proposals:
> >>>   - have an inplace-transition building required library packages for an
> >>>     upgrade as biarch packages and continue to use the current sparc name.
> >> This would mean that many packages needs to be modified. Is it really
> >> worth the work needed if we consider the availability of multiarch in
> >> the next time?
> > you'll end up modifying a different set of packages for the new 
> > architecture name in control and rules files. I don't know if this is 
> > less or more work.
> 
> If I understand this correctly, this would need the modification off all
> library packages to implement biarch semantic.

... which will be needed anyways. So your choice is actually between
doing it and doing it plus some extra intermediate work.

Mike