Jonathan Yu <jonathan.i...@gmail.com> writes: > Agreed on all counts. I've been out of the game for awhile and it would > be nice to have something in Policy to read about multiarch, so that I > can catch up on the state of the art.
Yeah, I've had the same problem. :) I learn all sorts of things about Debian by writing things up for Policy. I think with the latest discussions I've wrapped my mind around most of the issues. > I think of the three mentioned items, MultiArch is the most important, > as it affects the most things, followed by symbol files. As you note, > we've gotten away without the trigger documentation for awhile, probably > in part because it's not needed as often as symbol files and MultiArch > are. That feels right to me as well. I started with symbols files because it's settled, whereas multiarch was still in flux, but hopefully multiarch will be settling shortly. > Having read some of your later comments, I have to admit that I think > your plan is quite ambitious, but long overdue. I will keep an eye on > this mailing list and try to devote some spare cycles to proofreading > the proposed changes. Wonderful, thank you! -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/878vjor9qu....@windlord.stanford.edu
