On Sun, 2011-03-20 at 13:21 +0900, Hiroyuki Yamamoto wrote: > Hi, > > (2011年03月20日 12:22), Ben Hutchings wrote: > >> > >> Please support ppc64. > > > > Is 'ppc64' an official port yet? > > No, not 'official' port now. > However, considerable parts of the environment for ppc64 port still > remain in the packaging system.
I didn't mean 'is it a release architecture'. Well, I found the answer: <http://www.debian.org/ports/#unreleased> does list ppc64. > > Why does this patch add a new config file rather than referring to > > powerpc/config and powerpc/config.powerpc64? > > Well, I used the same files as powerpc port for the time being. > I think that the same file should be indicated if it is necessary to > be managed as the same one for easiness. > And I also think that a different file should be indicated if the > possibility to be managed as another file is left. > This may be likely to discuss it. It would still be possible to override config options. But I think ppc64/powerpc64 should be the same as powerpc/powerpc64. (Just as amd64/amd64 is the same as i386/amd64, and sparc64/sparc64 is the same as sparc/sparc64.) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
