Re: [Debian-ppc64-devel] Re: Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:24 +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> 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.
Then "fix" powerpc :) And use alias tricks if you can to keep the old
name.
Ben.
Reply to: