Russ and Steve:
Thank you both for your replies.
I'm going to have to spend some time considering what you have both
said, and try to devise a clever way of representing the platform
information. In terms of maintainability I don't think I have much of
a problem there, since I'm using a Perl scri
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:23:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > My question is, does anyone know of cases where a given operating
> > system and architecture does not constitute a valid platform (ie,
> > Architecture in the d/control file sense).
> armel and lpia are special cases and don't comb
Jonathan Yu writes:
> Does that mean we should be able to just pick something from both
> lists, and turn that into a valid string to put in the Architecture
> field?
>
> solaris-armel, for example.
I think you have to distinguish between syntax and semantics here.
Syntactically, such as from th
Hi everyone:
I'm mailing this to both debian-policy and debian-devel, because I'd
like to get the perspective from both sides -- the policy one, and the
"in practice" thinking.
Currently architectures are defined as a string which contains two
parts, an operating system name, and a microprocessor
4 matches
Mail list logo
