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

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

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: [Fwd: Re: Bug#254598: Name of the Debian x86-64/AMD64 port]"):
> Pretty much all of these lead me to conclude that we should resolve
> along the following lines:

I was slightly unclear about whether that was a formal proposal, and
in any case didn't call for a vote.  But people seem to like it so I
hereby propose the following resolution, and call for a vote:

 The Technical Committee have considered the question of the name of
 the Debian x86-64/AMD64 port.  We resolve that:

  * In our opinion the porting team are the right people to be deciding
    on the architecture name, in general.
  * In our opinion there is no significant technical reason to
    interfere with the porting team's decision; on the contrary, we
    largely agree with the porting team's choice of `amd64'.
  * In our opinion architecture names with underscores in should not be
    used because of the existing use of underscore as a separator in
    package filenames, etc.; accordingly we advise that these should be
  * Since names with hyphens in are currently only used when separating
    variant kernel-processor combinations, we advise that this practice
    should be continued.
  * Therefore, insofar as we are granted any authority by the
    constitution, we uphold the porting team's choice of `amd64'.
  * We request that dpkg should be changed to use `amd64'.
    Should the dpkg maintainers decline, we will seek clarification of
    the Constitution and consider using our powers in 6.1(1), 6.1(2) or
    6.1(4) to overrule the dpkg maintainers.


Reply to: