severity 252346 wishlist
tags 252346 - sid
thanks
On Wed, 2004-06-02 at 20:50 +0000, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Package: dpkg
> Version: 1.10.22
> Severity: critical
> Tags: sid
> Justification: breaks the whole system
>
There is no "amd64" system currently in the Debian archive, therefore I
disagree with your justification and am downgrading this bug to
"wishlist" appropriately.
> the sudden renaming of the architecture from amd64 to x86-64 breaks all
> of the debian-amd64 port. All packages become uninstallable and no upgrade
> path is provided.
>
Incorrect.
You already have build boxes which when the new dpkg is installed will
happily build x86-64 package replacements for you.
For packages already built, you can simply pass --force-architecture to
dpkg when installing.
No upgrade path is provided because no *SUPPORT* was provided in dpkg
1.10.21.
> 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.
I outlined the reasons for using "x86-64" as the architecture onto the
mailing list, and will outline them again below for the new debian-devel
readers:
* the GNU architecture triplet is *not* amd64
* neither RedHat nor SuSE have named their ports amd64
* there are potential trademark issues using AMD's name in the port
* the reason "x86-64" has been chosen instead of "x86_64" is that we
currently use "_" as a filename separator and it is therefore not
a valid character in Package names, Version strings or Architecture
strings.
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