On 14 March 2011 10:47, Jonathan Nieder <jrnie...@gmail.com> wrote: > Konstantinos Margaritis wrote: > >> To cut the long story short, I agree with Steve's proposal on this: >> >> arm-linux-gnueabi_hf > > What is the purpose of the underscore? In other words, what is the > advantage over arm-linux-gnueabihf? I worry that some tools may not > like it --- for example, package names like > > mlton-target-arm-linux-gnueabi_hf > > are not allowed. Which looks very much surmountable, but just in > case, it seems prudent to ask. > > Just to be clear, this is not an objection (both triplets look fine to > me). I ask in the hope of getting the rationale well documented.
Sigh, fine, whatever. Nothing personal Jonathan, it just feels extremely frustrating to always have a point raised when we're about to finally make a decision - and yes, it's a very valid point that you raised. So, yes, ok, finally, let's agree -for the last time I hope- on the underscore-less triplet: arm-linux-gnueabihf So, can we please, please, close this bug and get on with other issues? Regards Konstantinos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-arm-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktiksycywojg0_ne3kkc9cxn9yus-xefm4rq51...@mail.gmail.com
