On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 01:07 +0000, 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 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' is based on the LSB and it is > > consistent with the decision of all other distributions I know of. > > > But it isn't consistent with Debian's previous decision on the PowerPC > port. In particular, the LSB mandates "ppc32" for what we call > "powerpc".
Ok, so if I follow you: We did it wrong for powerpc, and that justifies doing it wrong again for ppc64 ? Hrm... Ben. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
