On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:10:59AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 00:31 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > Moreover, I seriously doubt that this is an honest argument. I think you
> > just want to decide the architecture name yourself.
> >
> No, I would just prefer consi
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:24:04PM +, 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 P
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 01:26:17AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> No Debian tool depends on s/32/64/ or s/$/64/. As for me, I type "ppc"
> instead of "powerpc" very often, even though I should know better by now.
Likewise. This would seem to be a case of "once may be regarded as a
misfortune,
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 Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 01:07:05AM +, 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 d
Scott James Remnant wrote:
>On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 01:57 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>>
>> 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
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 'ppc6
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
Hi, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> 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.
>
He did, didn't he? LSB conformity, for one. No Debian precedent for
appending "64" to
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 00:31 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-16 22:24, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > So you would add 'powerpc64' support to dpkg if the port changes its
> > > package name accordingly?
> > >
> > Yes, that'd be applied to the 1.13 branch straight away.
> >
> > > Howe
On 05-Mar-16 22:24, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > So you would add 'powerpc64' support to dpkg if the port changes its
> > package name accordingly?
> >
> Yes, that'd be applied to the 1.13 branch straight away.
>
> > However, I still do not understand why you and/or the Project Leader
> > wan
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, Mar 16, 2005 at 10:24:04PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Because it's a 64-bit version of an already supported architecture.
> Having "ppc" and "ppc64" would be fine, as would having "powerpc" and
> "powerpc64". Having "powerpc" and "ppc64" is inconsistent.
and deviating from an alr
On 05-Mar-16 22:01, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>
> > On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
> > > >
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 Leader, that the existing
> > powerpc port is called "powerpc" -- and that
On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
>
> > This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
> >
> Which group? According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debian-devel there
> are currently two competing efforts for this port.
The
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 22:48 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> On 05-Mar-16 21:16, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> >
> > > This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
> > >
> > Which group? According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debia
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 20:27 +0100, Andreas Jochens wrote:
> This is a call for help from the 'ppc64' porters.
>
Which group? According to Sven Luther's e-mail to debian-devel there
are currently two competing efforts for this port.
Scott
--
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange thin
20 matches
Mail list logo
