On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 20:47 +0900, Hiroyuki Yamamoto wrote: > Hi, > > (2011-03-21 20:39 +0000), Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 13:18 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > >>>> Why does this patch add a new config file rather than referring to > >>>> powerpc/config and powerpc/config.powerpc64? > >>> > >>> Well, I used the same files as powerpc port for the time being. > >>> I think that the same file should be indicated if it is necessary to > >>> be managed as the same one for easiness. > >>> And I also think that a different file should be indicated if the > >>> possibility to be managed as another file is left. > >>> This may be likely to discuss it. > >> > >> It would still be possible to override config options. But I think > >> ppc64/powerpc64 should be the same as powerpc/powerpc64. (Just as > >> amd64/amd64 is the same as i386/amd64, and sparc64/sparc64 is the same > >> as sparc/sparc64.) > > > > Please try the attached patch. This avoids the duplication of config > > files or rules in debian/rules.real. It also uses the flavour name > > 'powerpc64' rather than 'ppc64', matching the name used on powerpc. > > This should make any future multiarch transition for powerpc users a > > little smoother. > > Thanks for your patch. > > I tried it, and I confirmed it to be no problem.
OK, then I'll apply it. Ben. > I attach the full patch that I tried. > > Regards, -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
