Control: tags -1 moreinfo On Thu, 2016-02-11 at 14:34:27 +0000, Alex Willmer wrote: > Package: dpkg > Version: 1.18.4 > Severity: wishlist > Tags: patch
> Please could you add the attached definition for CloudABI, a new POSIX-like > runtime (currently) for amd64/x86_64 and arm64/aarch64. > > I'm requesting this as a step in getting a CloudABI toolchain packaged on > Debian. I'm not seeking to introduce a new Debian port or multiarch. > > I've posted [1] with some background info and am happy to answer queries, > comments etc. there; or whereever you'd prefer. > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2016/02/msg00126.html Great! I see it already covers most of the points in <https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Dpkg/FAQ#Q._Can_we_add_support_for_a_new_dpkg_architecture.3F> but I've got some inguiries. (I've done some updates there just now. :) > --- ostable 2015-11-26 23:53:38.000000000 +0000 > +++ ostable 2016-02-09 14:30:44.000000000 +0000 > @@ -37,3 +37,4 @@ > uclibceabi-uclinux uclinux-uclibceabi uclinux[^-]*-uclibceabi > uclibc-uclinux uclinux-uclibc uclinux[^-]*(-uclibc.*)? > tos-mint mint mint[^-]* > +cloudabi-unknown unknown-cloudabi unknown[^-]*-cloudabi Oh so this means the same binary could be run on FreeBSD, Linux, the Hurd, etc. (as long as the system has been ported to support those executables? Nice. (BTW this reminds me a bit of my GNU/Any proposal! <https://www.hadrons.org/~guillem/debian/ports/gnu-any/debian-gnu-any.txt> :) In any case I assume the unkwown here is referring to the vendor? Such as «pc» or similar, instead of the kernel? In which case this should not be present at all. If this refers to the kernel, I'd use «none» instead which hopefully should be less confusing. Thanks, Guillem
