On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 00:42 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > It's useful to pass to anything that accepts a GNU type, because they > > That's a very weak excuse to keep this unfixed. Please document it as a > BUGS entry in the dpkg-architecture manpage, at the very least. > I think you're right that it would be prudent to document that the types are the same format as that returned by `gcc -dumpmachine` and require canonicalisation.
> BTW, what you have in the dpkg-architecture manpage about how to use the > output of dpkg-architecture with autoconf would best be replaced to a > pointer to the README.Debian for autotools-dev. Really. If you'd rather > have it on a manpage, I can write one and add it to autotools-dev. Does > autotools-dev(7) sound good? > Yeah, that would be excellent; I'd certainly happily link to it. > > It's suitable for "configure", and good enough for gcc; seems reasonable > > to me. > > Since when are we about "good enough" anything? If that's the explanation, > please reopen the bug and tag it wontfix. > It's a wishlist bug, so I've always understood those are closed rather than wontfix'd -- unless they're popular enough for people to keep reopening them. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
