At 20:20 +0200 1999-07-26, Matthias Klose wrote:
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
I just updated to the newest version of `debian-policy', and noticed
that the copyright date is `1998'. Shouldn't that be updated?
Some questions and remarks to the ...
> 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:
>
> -
>
>
> I would like to use this suggestion. Comments?
See my previous mail: I'd say the -Arch variants are unnecessary, but
if everybody wants them for clearness of design, I won't oppose.
> Sounds good. Actually, that was what I had originally in mind. If
> there are no objections, I'll make this pa
> I strongly agree with the proposal.
Nice to have you on the boat, too :-)
> I disagree with Roman's suggestion that we should remove the Arch-
> versions because they'd not be used often. I think it important that
> the resulting scheme be orthogonal. It should also parallel the
> `binary-*' t
5 matches
Mail list logo
