Ok, now that we separate woody and unstable, it is time to think about this. IMO, this is not a gcc only thing. So propably it should be changed in dpkg/policy first. debian-<cpu>-linux-gnu and <cpu>-linux-gnu come to mind as an alternative.
Ben Collins writes: > Just a heads up on what is about to happen. RMS is complaining that we > use "<cpu>-linux" instead of "<cpu>-linux-gnu". I know there's a lot of > dependency in our tools on the naming scheme, but we may want to > consider adding that "-gnu" and see what is involved. > > ----- Forwarded message from Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- > > X-Virus-Scanner: McAfee Virus Engine > X-Spam-Status: Scanner Called > From: Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: PATCH: gcc-3.1/criteria.html > Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=6.5 tests= version=2.1 > > Debian uses the names that simplify coding of our packaging system. All > of our GNU/Linux architectures use "<cpu>-linux". > > That was a mistake, I gather. > > Is there some technical reason that we need this? What makes your > suggestion correct, when what we use has always worked for us? > > If it is meant to be a GNU configuration name, it is not correct. It > omits the second part, and the system name is in nonstandard form. > > Besides the technical problem, there is the communication problem. > This says something wrong to humans--it encourages people to think > that the whole system is "Linux". For our sake, please change this. > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > -- > .----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----. > / Ben Collins -- Debian GNU/Linux -- WatchGuard.com \ > ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' > `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
