On 23 November 2010 00:00, Steve Langasek <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vorlon@debian.org">vorlon@debian.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
BTW, it's ok to make this change manually now, but it will be overwritten<br>
the next time someone runs the update-archs target in debian/rules. Which<br>
is overdue, because there are a couple of architectures we're already<br>
missing currently (powerpcspe, sparc64). I don't think we should be<br>
prioritizing architectures in the package list that aren't even supported by<br>
dpkg yet, above those that are supported by dpkg.<br></blockquote><div><br>In that case, I guess the best solution is to ignore this patch and just wait until type-handling gets updated.<br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Which is where type-handling is getting its architecture list these days -<br>
the output of 'dpkg-architecture -L'.<font color="#888888"><br></font></blockquote><br>Which also means, I have to push dpkg maintainers again to resolve the situation and include the port name and propose a solution to the triplet issue. :-/<br>
Otherwise, I run the risk of eventually having a port at 95+% which fulfills all archive inclusion criteria but is not supported by dpkg :)<br><br>Regards<br><br>Konstantinos<br></div>