On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 01:07 +, 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 differen
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 23:59 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-17 09:46, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Have we any proper way of doing multiarch setups ? The "proper" way to
> > do ppc64 is to have both archs libs and 32 bits userland for most
> >
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 23:59 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-17 09:46, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Have we any proper way of doing multiarch setups ? The "proper" way to
> > do ppc64 is to have both archs libs and 32 bits userland for most
> >
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:24 +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 23:14 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>
> > On 05-Mar-16 22:01, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > >
> > > My concern is the same as that of the Project
> However, I still do not understand why you and/or the Project Leader
> want to override the decision of the porters and choose a different name
> than the LSB specifies. I am not saying that Debian should always follow
> the LSB blindly, but I cannot see a good reason for deviating from the
>
> Anyway, the biarch approach will also need a 'dpkg' which supports
> separate 64-bit ppc64 packages in the end.
>
> What are your concerns? Do you refuse to support a native 64-bit
> powerpc64/ppc64 port? Or do you want a different name for it?
I think there is not real point in doing so, or
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
>
> On 05-Mar-14 16:14, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > Also, as with the amd64 port, there is disagreement about the name.
> > While ppc64 would be nicer and in line with the LSB
7 matches
Mail list logo
