Greetings, There is concern from dpkg upstream (as mentioned in the email below) that we're not decided upon what the Opteron support in dpkg should look like. This is a call for patches to add Opteron support to dpkg which we will then attempt to come to consensus on as the 'porters' to the architecture. Once a consensus on a patch is made we will forward it to dpkg upstream for inclusion. Thanks, Stephen ----- Forwarded message from Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com> ----- Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 12:10:50 -0300 From: Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com> To: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, 252346@bugs.debian.org Cc: Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org> X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.5.7 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=2.63 Subject: Re: Bug#252346: dpkg: Breaks the debian-amd64 port On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 19:31 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Scott James Remnant (scott@netsplit.com) wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 20:50 +0000, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > Please change the name back to amd64 asap and next time consult the > > > debian-amd64 port mailinglist (and not $RANDOM DD using amd64) before > > > doing such a drastic change. > > > > > I didn't consult "$RANDOM" developers, I consulted both members of the > > ftpmaster team and of the port team. If these people didn't speak for > > *you*, that is too bad. > > > > In the end, I took a decision based on the problems and facts given to > > me. > > The decision wasn't yours to make. > Fair enough, I've backed out the .22 changes *entirely*. There is clearly a vast disagreement between the various porters about what is best and even whether the archtable entries are right in the first place. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? ----- End forwarded message -----
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature