On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 06:43:38PM -0800, Grant Bowman wrote: > * James A. Treacy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011213 18:27]: > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 06:35:06PM -0700, Chris Tillman wrote: > > > The term 'Ports' itself is in effect an i386-ism. Supported > > > Architectures is much more descriptive to non-developer types. > > > > As always there are competing goals. Keeping the string short is one of > > them. > > What about Architectures? Is this too long? > The problem with this term is that it is generally used to denote different hardware and thus doesn't do justice to the port to the hurd. Frankly, I don't believe any word will be acceptable to all and I'd stick with Ports. After all, every release is a port of Debian - including x86 if we want to state it that way.
-- James (Jay) Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
