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?
Description: This is a digitally signed message part