[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#254598: Name of the Debian x86-64/AMD64 port

* 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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: