Riku Voipio wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:38:52AM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Not being a dpkg maintainer, I find this to be a gratuitous change for
no good reason (other than "it looks a bit better"). I don't see what
point it would serve.
Maybe the ability to run Debian on embedded or old systems?
AFAIK, there is currently no support for running Debian with uclibc...
Wouter is referring to the naming change. Indeed I agree, changing
naming conventions is troublesome, and discussions about what naming
convention "looks good" are endless. Essentially it's a
"color of the bikeshed" [1] issue.
Yes, we whould not change names of existing archs. However,
for new ones, we better choose suitable names.
As for debian with uClibc, there is SLIND[2] which uses
uclibc-i386 / uclibc-arm/ uclibc-powerpc and i386-uclibc[3] alioth
project, which is quite staganant ATM and hasn't selected arch name yet.
[1] http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/16.19.shtml
[2] http://www.emdebian.org/slind.html
This one looks dead.
[3] http://alioth.debian.org/projects/i386-uclibc/
There were no updates to this one since october. Is it still alive?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
