On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 05:19:17PM +0200, Andreas Jochens wrote: > On 05-Sep-23 15:54, Sven Luther wrote: > > (and btw, i may have posted about in favour of ppc64 in the paste, but > > powerpc64 is indeed what looks best :) > > Hello Sven, > > six month ago the Debian package name for the ppc64 port was discussed > on debian-devel and you voted for 'ppc64' in that discussion > (http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/03/msg01828.html). > > A decision for the name 'ppc64' has been made six month ago. > The main reasons for that decision was that the LSB specifies > 'ppc64' as the standard package name and that all other distributions > which have ppc64 packages use that name. > > Packages in the Debian archive have started to use that name
And after you unilateraly mass-bug-filling again them. There is no such thing as a ppc64 archive yet anyway, and apt/dpkg/whatever need a change for multi-arch anyway, so things are open. > in many places after that decision, e.g. 'dpkg', 'apt', 'gcc-4.0' > and many others. About 95% of the 'unstable' distribution have > been compiled for the ppc64 architecture using that name. Which is all useless to us in the current state, as we discussed previously. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
