RE: Counter-Proposal: Architecture Versions and Architecture Features

2003-06-30 Thread Julian Mehnle
Andreas Barth wrote: > * Julian Mehnle ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030627 21:05]: > > [...] > > Thanks for your proposal. IMHO it is important that we are going to > adopt one or the other proposal rather soon, so that it could be used in > sarge. I agree. > Now to comments: > > > Every base arch (al

Re: Counter-Proposal: Architecture Versions and Architecture Features

2003-06-29 Thread Andreas Barth
* Julian Mehnle ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030627 21:05]: > I understand that the your proposed extensions to the Debian package system > are based on the concepts of "sub-archs" and "meta-sub-archs" (I'd call > these "pseudo-sub-archs" or "alias-sub-archs", though). I have already > proposed a more gen

Counter-Proposal: Architecture Versions and Architecture Features

2003-06-29 Thread Julian Mehnle
Hi all, (I'm sending this message again, since the copy I sent yesterday seems not to have made it onto the list. If you receive it twice, please excuse.) Andreas Barth wrote: > DRAFT - Subarchitectures for debian [0.1] First, thanks for creating a prototype proposal. I understand that the you

Counter-Proposal: Architecture Versions and Architecture Features

2003-06-26 Thread Julian Mehnle
Hi all, Andreas Barth wrote: > DRAFT - Subarchitectures for debian [0.1] First, thanks for creating a prototype proposal. I understand that the your proposed extensions to the Debian package system are based on the concepts of "sub-archs" and "meta-sub-archs" (I'd call these "pseudo-sub-archs" o