On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 23:14 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote: > On 05-Mar-16 22:01, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote: > > > > My concern is the same as that of the Project Leader, that the existing > > powerpc port is called "powerpc" -- and that we should at least try to > > be consistent with already chosen architecture names. > > > So you would add 'powerpc64' support to dpkg if the port changes its > package name accordingly? > Yes, that'd be applied to the 1.13 branch straight away. > However, I still do not understand why you and/or the Project Leader > want to override the decision of the porters and choose a different name > than the LSB specifies. I am not saying that Debian should always follow > the LSB blindly, but I cannot see a good reason for deviating from the > LSB in this case. > Because it's a 64-bit version of an already supported architecture. Having "ppc" and "ppc64" would be fine, as would having "powerpc" and "powerpc64". Having "powerpc" and "ppc64" is inconsistent. 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