Bug#263743: [Debian-ppc64-devel] Re: Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:10:59AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 00:31 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote: > > Moreover, I seriously doubt that this is an honest argument. I think you > > just want to decide the architecture name yourself. > > > 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. Notice that ppc64 is what is widely known in the outside world on anyone working with 64bit powerpc, that both the kernel and the toolchain use it, that all the documentation referent to it uses ppc64 and that the other distributions doin 64bit powerpc (gento, suze and redhat) use it too, as well as all cross toolchain out there. Will we want to do something different as pure dogma, despite the cost involved ? > 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. Hehe. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#263743: [Debian-ppc64-devel] Re: Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:24:04PM +, 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. Notice that powerpc used to be called ppc back then (98ish or something such), and that the name got changed to powerpc64. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#263743: [Debian-ppc64-devel] Re: Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 01:07 +, 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". Ok, so if I follow you: We did it wrong for powerpc, and that justifies doing it wrong again for ppc64 ? Hrm... Ben. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture
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? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture
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]
Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 00:31 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote: > On 05-Mar-16 22:24, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > > 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. > > Inconsistent like i386/amd64 or s390/s390x? There is no rule which > says that for a 64 bit architecture a '64' suffix has to be appended. > There is not even a single case in Debian where this has been done, > as far as I know. > Indeed not, because we're only really starting to see both 32-bit and 64-bit variants of architectures in Debian. > Moreover, I seriously doubt that this is an honest argument. I think you > just want to decide the architecture name yourself. > 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. 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. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture
On 05-Mar-16 22:24, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > 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. Inconsistent like i386/amd64 or s390/s390x? There is no rule which says that for a 64 bit architecture a '64' suffix has to be appended. There is not even a single case in Debian where this has been done, as far as I know. Moreover, I seriously doubt that this is an honest argument. I think you just want to decide the architecture name yourself. I am saying this because a few month ago you wrote this: On 04-Nov-24 08:29, Scott James Remnant wrote: > Please file this request with the powerpc64 port team, rather than with > the dpkg maintainer. > > Support for this architecture will not be included until the port team > have picked a name for it. This seemed to imply that you would respect the decision of the porters and that you do not want to decide the name yourself. Now that there is a decision and a whole archive with 85% of the packages compiled, you do not accept that decision. You are basically saying: "Take the name 'powerpc64' which I like best - or that architecture will not be supported." But you do not have any convincing reason for not accepting the choosen name. Regards Andreas Jochens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#263743: [Debian-ppc64-devel] Re: Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:24 +, 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]
Bug#263743: [Debian-ppc64-devel] Re: Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture
> 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. Me neither... especially since all other distros, afaik, call it ppc64... Ben. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#263743: [Debian-ppc64-devel] Re: Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture
> Anyway, the biarch approach will also need a 'dpkg' which supports > separate 64-bit ppc64 packages in the end. > > What are your concerns? Do you refuse to support a native 64-bit > powerpc64/ppc64 port? Or do you want a different name for it? I think there is not real point in doing so, or mostly academic, but feel free to do it anyway. I'd rather see more efforts be put in the biarch port for now though. And as I wrote earlier, just beware that the compiler has to be biarch in both cases or you'll have a hard time building kernels. Ben. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:24:04PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: > 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. and deviating from an already established standard isn't? i'm wondering what the actual benefits of having a similarly (powerpc/powerpc64) named port are, apart from being aesthetically pleasing. sean -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture
On 05-Mar-16 22:01, Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote: > > > On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote: > > > > > > > This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters. > > > > > > > Which group? According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debian-devel there > > > are currently two competing efforts for this port. > > > > What are your concerns? Do you refuse to support a native 64-bit > > powerpc64/ppc64 port? Or do you want a different name for it? > > > 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. > > amd64 was reasonably unique in that it wasn't derived from any existing > architecture name. And in fact, in that case, I championed using the > LSB-mandated name (or as close thereto). > > If anything, that's ruled that Debian does not attempt harmony with LSB > names for architectures. So you would add 'powerpc64' support to dpkg if the port changes its package name accordingly? It would be possible to change the name to 'powerpc64' without too many problems. The port does not have many users yet and it will take only three or four weeks to recompile the current archive with a new package name. 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. Regards Andreas Jochens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture
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. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote: > On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote: > > > > > This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters. > > > > > Which group? According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debian-devel there > > are currently two competing efforts for this port. > > What are your concerns? Do you refuse to support a native 64-bit > powerpc64/ppc64 port? Or do you want a different name for it? > 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. amd64 was reasonably unique in that it wasn't derived from any existing architecture name. And in fact, in that case, I championed using the LSB-mandated name (or as close thereto). If anything, that's ruled that Debian does not attempt harmony with LSB names for architectures. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture
On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote: > > > This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters. > > > Which group? According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debian-devel there > are currently two competing efforts for this port. There is only one native ppc64 port. There are people like Sven Luther and others who try to convert the current powerpc port into a biarch port, which is still mainly 32-bit based. This approach intends to add a 64-bit kernel and a biarch toolchain to the powerpc port and will allow the installation of selected 64-bit libraries and 64-bit binaries besides the 32-bit ones. This is somewhat similar to the i386 port which has already been extended with a 64-bit (amd64) kernel, a biarch (gcc-3.4) toolchain and some amd64 64-bit libraries. This kind of 64-bit extension of a 32-bit port is not the same thing as a native 64-bit port. Anyway, the biarch approach will also need a 'dpkg' which supports separate 64-bit ppc64 packages in the end. What are your concerns? Do you refuse to support a native 64-bit powerpc64/ppc64 port? Or do you want a different name for it? Regards Andreas Jochens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote: > This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters. > Which group? According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debian-devel there are currently two competing efforts for this port. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#263743: Call For Help - Please support the ppc64 architecture
Hello, This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters. On 05-Mar-14 16:14, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > Also, as with the amd64 port, there is disagreement about the name. > While ppc64 would be nicer and in line with the LSB, our current > PowerPC port is called powerpc and therefore it would make more sense > to call the 64 bit port powerpc64. There has been a decision of the Debian Technical Committee concerning the name of the amd64 port which basically says that the porting team should decide on the architecture name generally (see [1]). The ppc64 porters decided to use the name 'ppc64' as the package name a few month ago. That decision was mainly based on the fact that the Linux Standard Base LSB 2.0 states that 'ppc64' is the correct package name for the architecture. Other distributions like Fedora and Gentoo also use the name 'ppc64'. The Linux kernel uses 'ppc64', while the GNU toolchain uses 'powerpc64' with 'ppc64' as an alias. In the meantime, an archive for the ppc64 port has been set up on alioth (see http://debian-ppc64.alioth.debian.org/READ_ME for details). That archive uses the name 'ppc64' as the package name. An autobuilder for ppc64 is running, which follows the Debian unstable distribution. The autobuilder is self-hosting since January 2005, i.e. it runs the ppc64 port itself. The ppc64 archive on alioth currently has more than 85% of the packages from the Debian unstable distribution compiled. That number is still (slowly) rising. Every help will be appreciated, of course. Please help the ppc64 port by including support for the ppc64 architecture in 'dpkg' and other packages. Many thanks to all package maintainers who already applied patches to their packages to support the ppc64 architecture. Regards Andreas Jochens [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2004/06/msg00115.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
