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 consi
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 P
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 differen
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
> 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
>
> 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
6 matches
Mail list logo
