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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]