* Andreas Steffen (reignbow@kawo1.rwth-aachen.de) wrote: > Following the official definition of the architecture name as "x86-64", there That's not the official arch name, I expect it'll get fixed in dpkg shortly. I *certainly* would discourage jumping the gun on changing everything (most things *again* since we already moved from x86-64 to amd64). > has been a lot of talk about the ethics of one name over another, > practicality, and so on. What I want to know, is this: What does this mean > for the users? I am currently setting up a future high-availability It doesn't mean much for the users, one way or the other. > bridge/packet filter, and I could really do without dpkg-breakage due to > partial name changes. Should I just not update in the next fortnight, or need > I have no fear? If a bit of both, which packages might be particularly > affected? What are you setting it up using? Pure64? That's got the correct patch to dpkg included in it and we'll probably work to avoid breaking it in any case. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature