On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 10:31:58AM +0100, Martin Guy wrote:
> > dpkg-architecture in dpkg 1.13 returns "os-cpu", where os and arch are
> > grabbed from ostable and cputable.
> Er... are we talking about different meanings of the word "architecture" here?
s/os and arch/os and cpu/
> This discussion is about the new equivalent to "arm", "i386", "m68k"
> and so on, as used in the file names for Debian binary packages that
> contain machine-dependent object code.
> Do you mean that all the existing architectures (i386, arm, powerpc)
> have to change to linux-i386, linux-powerpc etc? That makes no sense
> at all.
> Or that eabi/gnueabi is an operating system?
"arm", "i386", "m68k" are shorthands. Please have a look at
dpkg-architecture sources:
if ($os eq "linux") {
return $cpu;
} else {
return "$os-$cpu";
}
Next, have a look at ostable and cputable files. After that I think it
should be clear why current dpkg-architecture limits our choices.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
