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

[Scott James Remnant]

--=-U3II4pL20q+afxiVX2Fp
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 00:31 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:

> On 05-Mar-16 22:24, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > 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.
> >=20
> > > 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 n=
ame
> > > than the LSB specifies. I am not saying that Debian should always fol=
low=20
> > > the LSB blindly, but I cannot see a good reason for deviating from th=
e=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.
>=20
> Inconsistent like i386/amd64 or s390/s390x? There is no rule which=20
> 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.
>=20
Indeed not, because we're only really starting to see both 32-bit and
64-bit variants of architectures in Debian.

> Moreover, I seriously doubt that this is an honest argument. I think you=20
> just want to decide the architecture name yourself.
>=20
No, I would just prefer consistency.  You've deliberately chosen an
architecture name that's jarringly different from your 32-bit variant;
that's a rather bold thing to do, and I think you need to justify that.

Obviously I have no power to overrule you on your choice of architecture
name, but I'd like to try and appeal to some common sense in you, if
there is any.

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

--=-U3II4pL20q+afxiVX2Fp
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)

iD8DBQBCOMsSIexP3IStZ2wRAqtuAKCdHzwLFKzLF2WhHhhgiEkdkyaSgQCgtj3S
2GURGc9w3D3Y3hObV4s3uCE=
=+rcF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-U3II4pL20q+afxiVX2Fp--