Martin Michlmayr wrote:
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-13 00:04]:
I am adding some additional archs to my local installation like
i386-uclibc, which makes hurd-i386 an exception to the rule of
having the CPU arch first and the OS name the next.
There's also kfreebsd-{i386,amd64}, so why don't you use uclibc-i386?
Actually, I disagree. To me it makes perfect sense the way it
currently is, namely:
kernel-arch-libc
kernel and libc can be empty when they're the default (Linux and
glibc respectively).
The uclibc port uses Linux so I think i386-uclibc is fine. There
could be kfreebsd-i386-uclibc in the future, I suppose, or something
like that.
Makes sense. I would prefer however to stick with gcc's convention
of having arch(-vendor)-kernel-libc, however, kernel-arch(-vendor)-libc
is also
suitable.
Dpkg maintainer(s), what do you think is the correct procedure for
additing these things i.e., extra -vendor and -libc fields? I already
have a patch for dpkg package which adds-in uclibc variants...
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
