Hi! On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 10:30:19 +0100, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > This is an old bug. But at the debconf multiple people thought it has > been fixed already, while I don't think it was. > One small difference is that in the near future armhf/armel might be a > valid cpu architecture for mingw-w64 port. > The proposal over here http://wiki.debian.org/Mingw-W64 needs updating > to be completely inline with the multi arch spec, since that is now > implemented. > > Any updates?
Sorry, I thought I had replied but it appears that was not the case, it was on my radar to come back to it anyway, thanks for the reminder. The main issue I have with this request is that the upstream triplet just seems wrong, as it encodes part of the ABI in the vendor field. That's AFAIR, from reading the thread back then. For dpkg tools the vendor is irrelevant, and having to take it into account would imply changing the underlaying infrastructure which might not be a problem per se, if the reason for requiring this wan't wrong. I'm not sure if it's too late now to consider changing the triplet upstream, I should probable have brought this up long time ago, but then it seemed to be pretty settled down already. :/ OTOH, is dpkg buildable and usable at all on mingw-w64 systems? I understand though that there might be reasons to want the architecture supported so that cross-building is allowed, but then the request does not seem pressing, and that's one of the reasons I've not acted on it before. thanks, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
