[Debian-ppc64-devel] Re: Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture

[Scott James Remnant]

--=-qJuQz0BO/lQ1INiFVvx4
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:

> On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> >=20
> > > This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.=20
> > >=20
> > Which group?  According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debian-devel there
> > are currently two competing efforts for this port.
>=20
> What are your concerns? Do you refuse to support a native 64-bit=20
> powerpc64/ppc64 port? Or do you want a different name for it?
>=20
My concern is the same as that of the Project Leader, that the existing
powerpc port is called "powerpc" -- and that we should at least try to
be consistent with already chosen architecture names.

amd64 was reasonably unique in that it wasn't derived from any existing
architecture name.  And in fact, in that case, I championed using the
LSB-mandated name (or as close thereto).

If anything, that's ruled that Debian does not attempt harmony with LSB
names for architectures.

Scott
--=20
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

--=-qJuQz0BO/lQ1INiFVvx4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBCOKytIexP3IStZ2wRAr1dAJ45dDEqXR+lYYs50Hk4Avt1//ZkBgCgrQxV
AmOdQtSBpzerbfAetLz6qmU=
=3iEr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-qJuQz0BO/lQ1INiFVvx4--