Re: Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture
On 05-Mar-16 22:01, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>
> > On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
> > > >
> > > Which group? According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debian-devel there
> > > are currently two competing efforts for this port.
> >
> > What are your concerns? Do you refuse to support a native 64-bit
> > powerpc64/ppc64 port? Or do you want a different name for it?
> >
> 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.
>
> amd64 was reasonably unique in that it wasn't derived from any existing
> architecture name. And in fact, in that case, I championed using the
> LSB-mandated name (or as close thereto).
>
> If anything, that's ruled that Debian does not attempt harmony with LSB
> names for architectures.
So you would add 'powerpc64' support to dpkg if the port changes its
package name accordingly?
It would be possible to change the name to 'powerpc64' without too many
problems. The port does not have many users yet and it will take only
three or four weeks to recompile the current archive with a new
package name.
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.
Regards
Andreas Jochens
Reply to: