On Mon, Sep 21 2009, Russ Allbery wrote:
> "Giacomo A. Catenazzi" <c...@debian.org> writes:
>
>> ok. fair enough.
>> BUT: the original proposal and this proposal contain only the duet:
>
>> + A package may specify an architecture wildcard. Architecture
>> + wildcards are in the format <tt><var>os</var></tt>-any and
>> + any-<tt><var>cpu</var></tt>. <footnote>Internally, the package
>
>> The triplets are listed only in the footnote (which is IMHO confusing).
>
>> But if we want to support the klibc (and in general different libc
>> ABI), as it seems nice, this proposal should be more explicit about
>> the use of triplet, allow them in the usual places, and policy should
>> set the default value.
>
> Yes, I think I agree with all of that.
Any suggestions on the wording? I was treating this proposal as
merely reserving the namespace, and a later proposal coming forth with
actual details of the usage, when multi-arch is further along.
So, unless there are objections, I would like to see the wording
changes go in now, with clarifications added as and when multi-atch
solidifies.
manoj
--
Backed up the system lately?
Manoj Srivastava <sriva...@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
