On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:05:38AM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote:
[snip]
> >>There's also kfreebsd-{i386,amd64}, so why don't you use uclibc-i386?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Actually, I disagree. To me it makes perfect sense the way it
> >currently is, namely:
> > kernel-arch-libc
> >
> >kernel and libc can be empty when they're the default (Linux and
> >glibc respectively).
> >
> >The uclibc port uses Linux so I think i386-uclibc is fine. There
> >could be kfreebsd-i386-uclibc in the future, I suppose, or something
> >like that.
> >
> >
> Makes sense. I would prefer however to stick with gcc's convention
> of having arch(-vendor)-kernel-libc, however, kernel-arch(-vendor)-libc
> is also
> suitable.
Note that for Debian the arch part implies also the ABI, so we won't
have a 1:1 mapping to GNU-style <arch>-<vendor>-<os>-<libc+abi> anyway.
Thiemo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
