[Debian-ppc64-devel] x libraries and powerpc/ppc64 biarch setup.

[Sven Luther]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 02:21:56PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Sep-23 14:03, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > > Please do not start the naming debate for the ppc64 port again. 
> > > This has been discussed and decided months ago. 
> > 
> > Decided ? i don't think i was part of this discussion, and with the ppc/ppc64
> > kernel upstream thingy changing to a single powerpc one, things did indeed
> > change.
> 
> Sven, you wrote the following in that discussing on debian-devel
> (see http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/03/msg01828.html).

Hehe, yes, altough back then i was in the biarch optic, and if we go
multi-arch,thins may be different. 

> Sven Luther wrote:
> > Notice that ppc64 is what is widely known in the outside world on anyone
> > working with 64bit powerpc, that both the kernel and the toolchain use 
> > it, that all the documentation referent to it uses ppc64 and that the 
> > other distributions doin 64bit powerpc (gento, suze and redhat) use it 
> > too, as well as all cross toolchain out there.
> >
> > Will we want to do something different as pure dogma, despite the cost
> > involved ? 
> 
> The only voice against 'ppc64' in that discussion was from the
> dpkg maintainer Scott James Remnant.

A very important guy, right.

> And yes, it was decided to use the name 'ppc64'. Following that
> decision, this name was used by 'dpkg', 'apt', 'gcc-4.0' and
> a lot of other packages.

Bah. The past is the past, now is what counts.

> Sven, please do not work against the ppc64 port by confusing people.

You are the first one who started confusing people, doing the ppc64 stuff all
in your corner with nil integration with the rest of debian. There is no way
the issue can be confused less, and any solution that is going to be taken, is
going to have to start from scratch anyway.

Friendly,

Sven Luther