On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 09:08:33PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > thing that uses x86_64 exclusively is the _Linux_ kernel. As I mentioned > > in the previous email out of the various os/dist that support the > > x86_64/amd64 arch 8 out of 9 call it _amd64_. That is a fairly clear > > majority. > > You and Scott seem to be saying opposite things here. Can you guys get the > facts straight please? The last post I made wrt docs/internal is an accurate reflection of what each os/dist uses. Scott seems to want to ignore the facts. The tools even refer to amd64 but (iirc) Scott has said that it only uses them for the BSDs. Between the fact that Debian supports the BSDs as well as that the other dists refer to the arch as "amd64" in docs as well as internally (Gentoo/Mandrake/RHEL) I think it makes the most sense to keep our arch naming uniform with them and across all of Debian. If we call the Linux arch "x86_64" what will call kfreebsd port? "kfreebsd-amd64" like freebsd calls it or "kfreebsd-x86_64" to stay uniform with the linux port? If we use "amd64" for all it is much cleaner imho. Also, we wouldn't have to deal with various utility breakage from the "_", aiui DAK and various mirroring scripts would be affected along with SCC. The Debian amd64 port team is hoping to be able to release with Sarge since the port is already more compiled than most of the "ready" archs and has a working debian-installer. Having to fix all the scripts first would likely significantly delay its addition to the archive. If we do decide not to use "amd64" though imho we should only consider "x86_64" as the alternative since none of the other variations are used by anyone. Also "x86-64" would cause confusion in debian/rules and various other scripts because you would see both "x86_64" and "x86-64" in use in the for different purposes and someone would inevitably typo it. > > Even the LSB refers to the arch as amd64 everywhere but the packaging > > part, the only reason I can tell that x86_64 is used for packaging is > > Well, we are talking about packaging and the arch name in the LSB as > used for packaging is relevent and isn't likely to change. Which is why "x86_64" is a good alternative to "amd64" but "x86-64" is not... Thanks, Chris Cheney
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature