Hi, there are 3 weeks after Guillem sent this email, and no response from loongson.
I formally requst add "loong64" as dpkg name for loongarch64. and there are reasons to use "loong64" instead of "loongarch64" 1, loongarch64 is too long. 2, Gentoo already accepts loong64 as its architecture name for loongarch64. 3, other downstream ports, eg, ArchLinux, Slackware, alreaady choose "loong64" 4, distinguish with "old world" linux distrubutions, eg, Loongnix, Deepin, UOS and kylin. let me explain more detail for 4. Loongson made its software stack before try to submit them to community, this is so-called "old world", and releases it for business. Due to "old world" is rejected by comminity, Loongson follows the advises from community, rework their software stack, this is what they are doing, and a lot of work already accepted by community. this is so-called "new world" "old world" is imcompatible with "new world" in many ways, they are, but not limited to, firmware, memory map, boot, ABI, etc. Binaries from one world can't run in other world. "new world" is growing, and it's the future of loongarch, before loongson switches its bussiness strategy to "new world", “old world” and "new world" will live together. "old world" Linux: Loongnix, Deepin and UOS are based on Debian, they alread toke "loongarch64" as dpkg name for loongarch64. if "new world" use same name, we will meet really bad issue, users would install packages for "new world" to "old world" Debian, or use software repo for "new world" to upgrade their "old world", or vice versa. They will broken their OS, and make unnecessary loss. thus use a different dpkg name can avoid this issue, dpkg will reject foreign architecture, it's safe for both world users. BR. Ning.
