On Fri, Jun 18, 2004 at 01:07:54AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Pretty much all of these lead me to conclude that we should resolve > along the following lines: > > * In our opinion the porting team are the right people to be deciding > on the architecture name, in general. > > * In our opinion there is no significant technical reason to > interfere with the porting team's decision; on the contrary, we > largely agree with the porting team's choice of `amd64'. > > * In our opinion architecture names with underscores in should not be > used because of the existing use of underscore as a separator in > package filenames, etc.; accordingly we advise that these should be > avoided. > > * Since names with hyphens in are currently only used when separating > variant kernel-processor combinations, we advise that this practice > should be continued. > > * Therefore, insofar as we are granted any authority by the > constitution, we uphold the porting team's choice of `amd64'. > > * We request that dpkg should be changed to use `amd64'. > Should the dpkg maintainers decline, we will seek clarification of > the Constitution and consider using our powers in 6.1(1), 6.1(2) or > 6.1(4) to overrule the dpkg maintainers.
I agree with all of these items, and I don't have any better suggestions. Thanks, -- Raul
