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". 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