On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 04:33:32PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:55:24PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > On 19.08.2009 13:42, Bastian Blank wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 01:16:36PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > >>> I did speak with Martin Zobel at Debconf on how to get there, having two > >>> proposals: > >>> - have an inplace-transition building required library packages for an > >>> upgrade as biarch packages and continue to use the current sparc name. > >> This would mean that many packages needs to be modified. Is it really > >> worth the work needed if we consider the availability of multiarch in > >> the next time? > > you'll end up modifying a different set of packages for the new > > architecture name in control and rules files. I don't know if this is > > less or more work. > > If I understand this correctly, this would need the modification off all > library packages to implement biarch semantic.
... which will be needed anyways. So your choice is actually between doing it and doing it plus some extra intermediate work. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
