On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 10:38:52AM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote: > Wouter Verhelst wrote: > >On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 01:05:38AM +0100, Pjotr Kourzanov wrote: > >>Dpkg maintainer(s), what do you think is the correct procedure for > >>additing these things i.e., extra -vendor and -libc fields? I already > >>have a patch for dpkg package which adds-in uclibc variants... > > > >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?
You're misunderstanding me. I do understand the need for the -uclibc suffix; however, I fail to see the need to restructure the hurd-i386 name. It's there, it works, and heck, it's only a name; changing that name because it looks "wrong" sounds like fixing a non-problem to me. The structure of kernel-processor-libc is clear enough for whatever you want. > AFAIK, there is currently no support for running Debian with uclibc... SLIND? http://wiki.debian.org/EmdebianSlind -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
