On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 01:07:54 +0100, Ian Jackson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * 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 support this statement.
manoj
--
QOTD: "I'd never marry a woman who didn't like pizza... I might play
golf with her, but I wouldn't marry her!"
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
