Hi all,
it is at least second time as we needed to have a discussion about
tool-chains for Xtensa based devices (for firmware-ath9k-htc and for
esp8266). With the time we will get probably more discussions for
similar platforms.
Since there is no official or documented statement or naming schema
Bill Allombert ballo...@debian.org writes:
Here a slightly modified version of Jonathan patch that mention
Architecture:all packages.
Please comment or second it. I would like to commit it soon as a start
to multiarch documentation in policy.
[...]
Seconded, although I suggest sorting the
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 05:31:13PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:41:01AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Hi Russ et al,
First, thanks Jonathan a lot for providing this patch. While this is
not the full story this gives us a better basis to document multiarch.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:31:33AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
Goswin von Brederlow writes (Re: Bug#664257: multiarch tuples are not
documented/defined):
It is a bug in Debian: The multiarch tuples are not documented/defined
in Debian.
They are now documented on the wiki, as previously
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 01:41:01AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Hi Russ et al,
First, thanks Jonathan a lot for providing this patch. While this is
not the full story this gives us a better basis to document multiarch.
- what should the normative content be? It would not be too strange
Hi Russ et al,
The patch below documents the Architecture field. It doesn't cover
architecture tuples yet, but presumably once the description of
architectures is in good shape it would not be hard to add a mapping
from Debian arches to pathnames to section 9.1.5.
Some concerns:
- what should
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Goswin von Brederlow writes (Re: Bug#664257: multiarch tuples are not
documented/defined):
It is a bug in Debian: The multiarch tuples are not documented/defined
in Debian.
They are now documented on the wiki, as previously noted
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Clearly I'm not the person to convince others to add multiarch tupples
to their specs.
I don't see why or why not. But it isn't really about convincing ---
I'd be hard pressed to find someone who _doesn't_ want this stuff
documented better.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Goswin von Brederlow writes (Re: Bug#664257: multiarch tuples are not
documented/defined):
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
What change to the Debian operating system, or to processes,
documents, infrastructure
reassign 664257 debian-policy 3.9.3.1
affects 664257 =
tags 664257 = upstream
quit
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
It is a bug in Debian: The multiarch tuples are not documented/defined
in Debian.
Fine, reassigning to policy.
Never say I didn't do anything for you... :)
Policy maintainers, see
Goswin von Brederlow writes (Re: Bug#664257: multiarch tuples are not
documented/defined):
It is a bug in Debian: The multiarch tuples are not documented/defined
in Debian.
They are now documented on the wiki, as previously noted in this
thread.
The bug is also in the upstream code since
Trimming the cc list down to something somewhat less large.
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
It is a bug in Debian: The multiarch tuples are not documented/defined
in Debian.
Fine, reassigning to policy.
Never say I didn't do anything for you... :)
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
Matthias Klose writes (Bug#664257: multiarch tuples are not
documented/defined):
On 18.04.2012 05:16, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
I think the Multiarch/Tuples wiki page is now in a sane state, though
as always it could presumably be improved
Goswin von Brederlow writes (Re: Bug#664257: multiarch tuples are not
documented/defined):
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
What change to the Debian operating system, or to processes,
documents, infrastructure or organisational arrangements, maintained
by the Debian
Matthias Klose writes (Bug#664257: multiarch tuples are not
documented/defined):
On 18.04.2012 05:16, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
I think the Multiarch/Tuples wiki page is now in a sane state, though
as always it could presumably be improved even more. I think future
required improvements can
On 20.04.2012 16:55, Ian Jackson wrote:
Matthias Klose writes (Bug#664257: multiarch tuples are not
documented/defined):
On 18.04.2012 05:16, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
I think the Multiarch/Tuples wiki page is now in a sane state, though
as always it could presumably be improved even more. I
]] Matthias Klose
I won't fight for this. But it's some kind of Debian responsibility to
address/forward these. Just filing this with the FHS and/or LSB is likely
getting ignored. If you have better ways to track progress with this issue,
please tell here.
JFTR, the FHS and the LSB has a
severity 664257 important
thanks
On 18.04.2012 05:16, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Hi Matthias,
Steve McIntyre wrote:
I've updated http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Tuples with lots more
information such as links to external ABI specs where I could find
them.
I think the Multiarch/Tuples
Hi Matthias,
Steve McIntyre wrote:
I've updated http://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/Tuples with lots more
information such as links to external ABI specs where I could find
them.
I think the Multiarch/Tuples wiki page is now in a sane state, though
as always it could presumably be improved even
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 07:03:09AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
Package: general
Severity: serious
Tags: wheezy, sid
While we strive to get multiarch ready for squeeze, there is
currently nothing to point to what the multiarch tuples actually
mean, neither on the Debian side nor on some kind of
Provide:: Names:.. e.t.c..
Matthias Klose d...@debian.org writes:
On 21.03.2012 11:26, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Matthias Klosed...@debian.org writes:
On 19.03.2012 15:34, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Did you read the wiki page?
Yes. Is the kind of information on which calling convention,
Matthias Klose d...@debian.org writes:
On 19.03.2012 15:34, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Did you read the wiki page?
Yes. Is the kind of information on which calling convention, basic
system library structures, and so on form the ABI for a given tuple
that I was
On 21.03.2012 11:26, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Matthias Klosed...@debian.org writes:
On 19.03.2012 15:34, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Did you read the wiki page?
Yes. Is the kind of information on which calling convention, basic
system library structures, and so
Jonathan Nieder jrnie...@gmail.com writes:
Matthias Klose wrote:
While we strive to get multiarch ready for squeeze, there is
currently nothing to point to what the multiarch tuples actually
mean, neither on the Debian side nor on some kind of standards side
like the FHS or LSB. This has
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Did you read the wiki page?
Yes. Is the kind of information on which calling convention, basic
system library structures, and so on form the ABI for a given tuple
that I was giving examples of not what the upstream gcc folks were
looking for? I'm not sure I
On 19.03.2012 15:34, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Did you read the wiki page?
Yes. Is the kind of information on which calling convention, basic
system library structures, and so on form the ABI for a given tuple
that I was giving examples of not what the upstream gcc
Package: general
Severity: serious
Tags: wheezy, sid
While we strive to get multiarch ready for squeeze, there is currently nothing
to point to what the multiarch tuples actually mean, neither on the Debian side
nor on some kind of standards side like the FHS or LSB. This has to be
Matthias Klose wrote:
While we strive to get multiarch ready for squeeze, there is
currently nothing to point to what the multiarch tuples actually
mean, neither on the Debian side nor on some kind of standards side
like the FHS or LSB. This has to be documented on the Debian side,
and
30 matches
Mail list logo
