Hi! On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 21:09:20 -0500, Moffett, Kyle D wrote: > I believe we have consensus on the port architecture name of "powerpcspe". > Is there any chance we can get the attached patch merged soon? I'd like to > move forward with getting an unofficial debian-ports.org repository created > and they won't do that until a patch has been merged to upstream dpkg GIT.
It didn't seem clear to me the double issue had consensus, if it does, and both of you agree (Sebastian a Signed-off-by from you in this case would be nice), then yes, I'll gladly add the new architecture. > From: Kyle Moffett <kyle.d.moff...@boeing.com> > Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:47:25 -0400 > Subject: [PATCH] powerpcspe: New unofficial Debian port > The Debian port to this architecture specifically chooses to optimize > for the higher-end chips (e500v2), as most of the others are targeted at > automotive applications or no longer in production. Do both of you agree on this too? > The specific GNU triplet for this arch is "powerpc-linux-gnuspe". Like > the ARM EABI port (arm-linux-gnueabi) the naming seems unfortunate here; > an architecture triplet such as "powerpcspe-linux-gnu" would have been > far more appropriate. As a result, we end up adding an extra "ostable" > entry instead of one in "cputable". This is just nitpicking, but in this case I think the GNU triplet is appropriate for those two ports, as the matter of conflict is mostly ABI dependent. thanks, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
