Re: not pending anymore
Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
> Hi,
>
> you seem to be one more voice falling into the
>
> "I don't like the name Amd wants us to use but I have nothing better"
That is not what I said.
> group. If you can't suggest a workable alternative to amd64 thats
> meaningless.
Ok I will x86-64. That is what recent dpkg patch used
and I have successfully built packages with that name. Getting that
to work was mostly a matter of removing a couple of artificial
restrictions, in some of the tools. Using x86_64 is more problematic
in that a lot of debian naming conventions assume a special meaning
for underscore.
> Neither x86-64 nor x86_64 are workable with the tools at
> hand and a dislike for marketing guys is absolutely no reason for us
> to change the name to something else.
This is not a dislike for marketing guys. I do not think technical
decisions should be made to try and match a marketing name. Marketing
names continually change. So I think it would potentially be a never
ending struggle to keep all packages with the current marketing
name.
Beyond that I suggested that amd64 be an official alias. So packages
named x86-64 and amd64 both map to the x86-64 architecture.
So what I was really suggesting was to use both, and to normalize on
x86-64. I was hoping that was a sane enough suggestion that people
could adopt it and move on with life.
Now I have not done a lot of packaging with debs and that appears to
be where my confusion comes from. When messing with rpms frequently
there are .i386 and .i686 rpms depending on how they are optimized
and the both are fundamentally the same architecture. In this area
debs appear to be much less flexible so I guess you must choose
exactly one or rework the tools. In that case go with amd64,
it is not the most beautiful but the debian tools work without
modification.
Eric
Reply to: