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

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:24:04PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> 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:
> > > 
> > > 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.
> > > 
> > 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.

Notice that powerpc used to be called ppc back then (98ish or something such),
and that the name got changed to powerpc64.

Friendly,

Sven Luther