On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 12:37 -0300, Gustavo Noronha Silva wrote: > Em Sex, 2006-05-19 às 17:52 -0700, Erast Benson escreveu: > > is platform independent and just works. And if Debian's meta-information > > introduces problem for package which compiles and runs just fine from > > out of upstream tarball on non-glibc ports than maintainer might be > > interested to fix it, otherwise "Architecture: any" doesn't make much > > sense in its debian/control file. > > Our Architecture: field is about the arches that Debian itself supports. > If the meaning was broad as you describe, would we have to make sure our > packages build on MS DOS?
Sure not. :-) I was talking about existing Debian architectures which are part of official dpkg ostable: linux linux-gnu linux[^-]*(-gnu.*)? darwin darwin darwin[^-]* freebsd freebsd freebsd[^-]* kfreebsd kfreebsd-gnu kfreebsd[^-]*(-gnu.*)? knetbsd knetbsd-gnu knetbsd[^-]*(-gnu.*)? netbsd netbsd netbsd[^-]* openbsd openbsd openbsd[^-]* hurd gnu gnu[^-]* + solaris pc-solaris2 solaris.* > I'll agree with Josselin here: Debian is a GNU operatig system, not a > POSIX OS. If there are porting problems which are specific to Nexenta > and you want them to be integrated, you can provide patches. Or you can > port the GNU libc to Nexenta (and, after this happens, you can even > integrate Nexenta into Debian, why not?). Is that a requirement for Debian port (i.e. marked as "supported")? It is not correlates with what officials were saying in regards of non-glibc ports half a year ago. Could someone elaborate? > I do care about Free Software principles, but my time for working on > Debian is very limited these days, and porting my packages to an > "unsupported" architecture is not very high in my priorities list. "supported" and "existing"(unsupported) architectures are still Debian architectures. But I see your point. -- Erast -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
