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 > > > 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. > 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 > just want to decide the architecture name yourself. > 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 -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part