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. > Obviously I have no power to overrule you on your choice of architecture > name, but I'd like to try and appeal to some common sense in you, if > there is any. I think that common sense would be to follow the LSB and to use the LSB conforming package name that all other distributions use. Again, the name of the port could be changed and the existing archive could be recompiled. But I think that people would later come to the conclusion that deviating from the standard was a bad thing in this case. I did not yet hear a single vote for the package name 'powerpc64' from anybody who is actively involved in the p(ower)pc64 port. Regards Andreas Jochens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
