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

[Andreas Jochens]

On 05-Mar-16 22:24, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > So you would add 'powerpc64' support to dpkg if the port changes its 
> > package name accordingly?
> > 
> 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 
> > 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 
> > the LSB blindly, but I cannot see a good reason for deviating from the 
> > LSB in this case.
> > 
> 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.

Inconsistent like i386/amd64 or s390/s390x? There is no rule which 
says that for a 64 bit architecture a '64' suffix has to be appended.
There is not even a single case in Debian where this has been done,
as far as I know.

Moreover, I seriously doubt that this is an honest argument. I think you 
just want to decide the architecture name yourself.
I am saying this because a few month ago you wrote this:

On 04-Nov-24 08:29, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Please file this request with the powerpc64 port team, rather than with
> the dpkg maintainer.
>
> Support for this architecture will not be included until the port team
> have picked a name for it.

This seemed to imply that you would respect the decision of the porters and 
that you do not want to decide the name yourself. 
Now that there is a decision and a whole archive with 85% of the 
packages compiled, you do not accept that decision. You are basically
saying:

"Take the name 'powerpc64' which I like best - or that architecture 
will not be supported."

But you do not have any convincing reason for not accepting the choosen 
name.

Regards
Andreas Jochens