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
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.
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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'
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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
