Re: Sparc release requalification
- To: Matthias Klose <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: Jurij Smakov <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Philipp Kern <email@example.com>, Debian Release <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Sparc release requalification
- From: Bastian Blank <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 16:33:32 +0200
- Message-id: <20090819143332.GA22965@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org>
- Mail-followup-to: Matthias Klose <email@example.com>, Jurij Smakov <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, Philipp Kern <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Debian Release <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <4A8BE82C.email@example.com>
- References: <20090818204335.GA6874@droopy.oc.cox.net> <4A8BDF14.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20090819114240.GA18361@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org> <4A8BE82C.email@example.com>
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.
Star Trek Lives!