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

[Scott James Remnant]

--=-JEclNjp8nmtUwD6XU+Al
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 23:14 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:

> On 05-Mar-16 22:01, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> >=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.
> >=20
> So you would add 'powerpc64' support to dpkg if the port changes its=20
> package name accordingly?
>=20
Yes, that'd be applied to the 1.13 branch straight away.

> However, I still do not understand why you and/or the Project Leader=20
> want to override the decision of the porters and choose a different name
> than the LSB specifies. I am not saying that Debian should always follow=20
> the LSB blindly, but I cannot see a good reason for deviating from the=20
> LSB in this case.
>=20
Because it's a 64-bit version of an already supported architecture.
Having "ppc" and "ppc64" would be fine, as would having "powerpc" and
"powerpc64".  Having "powerpc" and "ppc64" is inconsistent.

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

--=-JEclNjp8nmtUwD6XU+Al
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)

iD8DBQBCOLIDIexP3IStZ2wRApMzAJ0eEBIXewrCDb9uKTKBh+xFy/my3wCdGTiq
0J1wIvaPdqqkuS6sVrnqAwQ=
=y3or
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-JEclNjp8nmtUwD6XU+Al--