On Sun, 2004-08-29 at 19:05 +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 05:33:14PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > > Please, for consistency could you use "linux-powerpc64" instead? > > > > Consistency with *what* ?! > > Consistency with the following arches supported by dpkg: > > darwin-i386 freebsd-i386 hurd-i386 kfreebsd-i386 knetbsd-i386 netbsd-i386 > openbsd-i386 darwin-powerpc > Those aren't Linux architectures. > > This would be entirely non-consistent with > > the other Linux architectures and I don't agree that there's a problem > > here. > > When judging consistency, you should look at the whole picture. In order to > arcieve a fully consistent scheme, the existing Linux architectures need to > be renamed too (I filed bug #268709 as a placeholder for this). > Exactly, and that's not going to happen. So we're left with the following naming rules: - Linux architectures use the architecture name (i386, powerpc) - Non-Linux architectures prefix with the kernel name (hurd-i386, darwin-powerpc) > OTOH, I don't estimate anything detrimental in this particular request. > It breaks the above, well-established naming scheme. 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