Package: debian-policy Severity: wishlist > 5.1. Architecture specification strings > ---------------------------------------
> If a program needs to specify an _architecture specification string_ > in some place, the following format has to be used: > > <arch>-<os> > > where `<arch>' is one of the following: i386, alpha, arm, m68k, > powerpc, sparc and `<os>' is one of: linux, gnu. Use of _gnu_ in this > string is reserved for the GNU/Hurd operating system. . > > Note, that we don't want to use `<arch>-debian-linux' to apply to the > rule `architecture-vendor-os' since this would make our programs > incompatible to other Linux distributions. Also note, that we don't > use `<arch>-unknown-linux', since the `unknown' does not look very > good. I cannot follow the rationale for the compatibility argument. Most Debian packages are built without an explicit architecture string. For most of these packages this doesn't matter, because the gnu build architecture is only used in error and help messages (i.e. gdb). Does such a package violate policy? Giving <arch>-<os> as the gnu build architecture makes these packages incompatible with other distributions. I don't say, policy contradicts itself, but this argument only makes sense, if the this architecture string is selected for all linux distributions. Do I may miss here some other arguments? Other linux distributions do make use of the vendor place of their own (redhat, suse) or use `pc' for this field. Given that the Debian way (<arch>-<os>) already is incompatible, why not use <arch>-debian-<os>, so you see the branding of the binaries? The counter argument for this is the intended use of the field for the _hardware_ vendor. Using the vendor field makes sense for identifying test results and bug reports, where the build info is extracted and sent with the report to an upstream source mailing list.
