On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 01:47:38PM +0100, Diederik de Haas wrote:
> I found the use of 'relevant' (architectures) confusing as both
> supported/ported and unsupported/'unported' architectures are relevant.
> So maybe using 'unsupported' (or 'unported') would be better?
yes.
--
cheers,
H
On Fri Jan 3, 2025 at 5:44 AM CET, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Package: developers-reference
> Severity: wishlist
> X-Debbugs-Cc: ni...@thykier.net
>
> The section 5.10.4 is about packages that are not portable to all
> architectures. Here it talks about changing the `Architecture` line and
> `Package
Hi Niels,
thanks for the bug report.
On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 05:44:28AM +0100, Niels Thykier wrote:
> I think we should add a mention of `architecture-properties` next to
> `Architecture`. Maybe something like:
>
> """
> Additionally, if you believe the list of supported architectures is pretty
Package: developers-reference
Severity: wishlist
X-Debbugs-Cc: ni...@thykier.net
Hi,
The section 5.10.4 is about packages that are not portable to all
architectures. Here it talks about changing the `Architecture` line and
`Packages-arch-specific` as possible ways.
I think we should add a me
4 matches
Mail list logo
