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

Re: Bug#252346: dpkg: Breaks the debian-amd64 port

* 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.  amd64 had already been agreed to,
and in fact had been moved to *from* x86-64.

> 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:

These are, at best, laughable.

>   * the GNU architecture triplet is *not* amd64


>   * neither RedHat nor SuSE have named their ports amd64

This isn't relevent either but- Gentoo, Mandrake and others call 
it amd64.

>   * there are potential trademark issues using AMD's name in the port

No, there aren't, no one is misrepresenting anything here.
Additionally, other ports would have 'potential trademark issues' if
there was one- Alpha, MIPS, MIPS32, MIPS64, SPARC, SPARC64, etc, etc.

>   * 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.

Just another good reason to use amd64.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: