Re: Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 01:07:05AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 01:57 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>
> > On 05-Mar-17 00:10, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > No, I would just prefer consistency. You've deliberately chosen an
> > > architecture name that's jarringly different from your 32-bit variant;
> > > that's a rather bold thing to do, and I think you need to justify that.
> >
> > The decision to use the name 'ppc64' is based on the LSB and it is
> > consistent with the decision of all other distributions I know of.
> >
> But it isn't consistent with Debian's previous decision on the PowerPC
> port. In particular, the LSB mandates "ppc32" for what we call
> "powerpc".
Debian did not really make a previous decision on "powerpc" port; it
evolved. At the time, none of these issues existed, and powerpc seemed
like the logical thing to call it.
I think Andreas has given good justification for using ppc64.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
Reply to: