Re: dpkg armhf patch acceptance status?

2011-03-14 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:00:42PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote: >On Mon, Mar 14, 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> 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 >>

Re: dpkg armhf patch acceptance status?

2011-03-14 Thread Loïc Minier
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > 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. Whic

Re: dpkg armhf patch acceptance status?

2011-03-14 Thread Konstantinos Margaritis
On 14 March 2011 10:47, Jonathan Nieder 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

Re: dpkg armhf patch acceptance status?

2011-03-14 Thread Jonathan Nieder
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 n

Re: Bug#594179: dpkg armhf patch acceptance status?

2011-03-14 Thread Konstantinos Margaritis
After a short discussion with Steve and later with Guillem on IRC, I think it's time to make a final decision about this issue. To cut the long story short, I agree with Steve's proposal on this: arm-linux-gnueabi_hf If we all agree on this, let's please have a dpkg release with the final armhf