* Scott James Remnant (scott@netsplit.com) wrote: > dpkg support for this architecture was added in 1.10.22 with the name > "x86-64"; up until this point the unofficial[0] port had been using the > name "amd64" which I felt had issues -- namely that the dpkg > architecture name should match the kernel architecture name as closely > as possible which "amd64" does not. > > Several of the people working on the port have expressed outcry at this > and questioned whether it was indeed my decision to select the name for > the architecture. > > I'd therefore like the place the following questions before the > technical committee: Since I'm involved with and would be affected by the resulting choice of architecture name for amd64 (unlike the people who want to have it called something else) I'll throw my 2c in: I don't see this as a technical issue and I don't believe the tech committee has any jurisdiction over it. It sure as hell wasn't my idea to involve it and currently I've got serious doubts about the tech committee anyway. Additionally, I'd expect the amd64 porters (certainly myself) to ignore the decision of the tech committee on this non-technical issue. We likely have enough resources amoung us to continue what we're doing today, even if we have to move off of Debian machines. The result being that there'd essentially be no one left interested in doing the work to recompile, upload, etc the packages with whatever name the tech committee comes up with to Debian. There's probably good reason that in the past and in general the porters are the ones who pick the arch name. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature