Re: Support now in dpkg
Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com> writes:
> [I am not subscribed to debian-amd64, please Cc: me if you feel your
> reply deserves my attention.]
>
>
> Hi all, you'll mostly be pleased to know that dpkg in unstable now
> supports your architecture; hopefully this is the first step towards
> consideration for archive addition.
>
> The archive name that has been chosen is "x86-64", which I understand
> might upset a few people who like the other name.
>
> As I've been at DebConf 4, it provided the ideal place to discuss the
> architecture name in person with many people from the different Debian
> teams including some of your own porters.
I fail to see why any Debian team should have a say in this apart from
the technical and legal side. Naming the port is the ports decision.
But maybe thats just me.
Currently only the following are actively working on the pure64 port
(from the keyring that governs who may upload):
pub 1024D/32951F5D 2003-06-03 TJ Vanderpoel (GCIA,GCIH) <tj@defendem.com>
pub 1024D/41954920 2003-10-29 Frederik Schüler <fschueler@gmx.net>
pub 1024D/5264C70D 2004-05-12 Stephen Frost <sfrost+amd64@snowman.net>
pub 1024D/8E384AF2 2000-05-15 Christopher L Cheney <ccheney@acm.org>
pub 1024D/E2CD1763 2004-05-11 Kurt Roeckx (debian-amd64 sign) <Q@ping.be>
pub 1024D/ED0D7CFA 2000-06-14 Goswin von Brederlow (inactive) <goswin.brederlow@student.uni-tuebingen.de>
I know you talked to Christopher but he was very sick with a fever the
last week and not quite thinking straight (due to being sick).
> The advantages of this name are:
>
> * it matches the GNU arch string
It does not match the GNU arch string. Thats it actually looks very
similar, - instead of _, will be far more confusing than the obvious
difference between amd64 and x86_64.
> * it matches the name chosen by RedHat, Fedora and SuSE
It doesn't match the name chosen by gentoo and others and it is only
confusingly close to Rh, Fedora and SuSe. For comparison others use
AXP instead of Alpha and Debian doesn't care. So either way is a mood
point.
What others do has as yet never stoped Debian from doing the right (or
wrong :) thing.
> * it doesn't include unnecessary marketing connotations, and avoids
> the issue whether we even *can* use AMD's name in vain
Most other archs used in debian are trademarks. Someone even checked a
Windows manual if i386 had a trademark and according to Microsoft it
has (thats not authorative but it was lying around). Using _i_386 or
_i_a64 or alpha or mips or sparc or .... has the same marketing
connotations as amd64. Actually amd64 is more like MIPS32, an industry
standard, and not like i386, an intel tradename.
I haven't seen a single amd64[tm] on the amd.com webpages but you
imediatly notice Athlon[tm] and similar. It doesn't look like amd has
tradenamed amd64 and it doesn't sound like they will (or can).
> The disadvantages are:
>
> * it isn't what you have been using to-date
>
> * it doesn't *quite* match the others "x86-64" vs. "x86_64"
Which nullifies your first and second argument and your third argument
is void too. So only disadvantages are left.
Further disadvantages:
* It is not the official name of the architecture. The official name
for amd64 (x86_64) is amd64 as you can see on:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9331,00.html
Its Amd's product so they have the right to name it.
Users will be looking for amd64. Thats whats written on the logos,
bumpers, stickers, commercials,.... Having the old obsolete name
x86_64 (actualy not even that but x86-64) will be confusing.
* A long time ago the project changed from the obsolete x86_64 name
to the new amd64 name following the renaming by Amd. The alioth
project debian-x86-64 was deprecated and a new debian-amd64
project was created:
http://alioth.debian.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=501
The debian-amd64 (not debian-x86-64) mailinglist exists since May
2003. The port is named debian-amd64 and never debian-x86-64.
* Using x86_64 is a problem because _ is the seperator between
package name, version and arch in the filename. As you said on irc
the DAK scripts will have problems with that name. Debpool for one
will also break. x86_64 can't be used without breaking tools.
Using x86-64 avoids the _ problem but it creates the - problem.
We suspect that a handfull of sources will break with - in the
architecture.
Both would be no argument if the change was needed but its
not. The chnage just creates extra work with no benefits.
> The first issue is simply a matter of rebuilding, which shouldn't take
> too long relatively. Your patches and fixes will still all work,
> hopefully.
Half the patches (not counting FTBFS on all archs, which is the
majority of patches) are about adding amd64 and most of those have
been accepted into sid already.
Rebuilding means that we have to hack the wanna-build, the archive
scripts, the build script, apt-get, dpkg, debootstrap, cdebootstrap,
debian-installer to allow some kind of transition or we have to start
from scratch again. All the essential tools we have set in place for
the port.
It also takes several man month to compile and upload all of sid again
at the bandwiths we have, not counting the countless man hours to fix
the build and Build-Depends problems such a task has.
> The second is due to "_" being used as a filename separator; I'd like to
> investigate what actually *relies* on this and potentially change the
> architecture at a later date (still before archive addition) to x86_64
> to totally match the others -- we'll see how that plays out.
Which means all the work you expect us to do now to change amd64 to
x86-64 is completly wasted. All patched packages have to be patched
and uploaded to sid yet again for x86_64. A flood of packages has to
be pushed into sarge or sarge will have sources with a broken
architecture lists (and that probably close or while in
freeze). Decide the arch name _NOW_ and stick with it. Please, no
x86-funny-arch-name-of-the-week-64 games.
Changing the name with the intention to change it again is out of the
question and we have patched dpkg for amd64 to stay amd64 and will do
so till this is decided.
_If_ an archive renaming is decided upon the only good time to
implement it would be when adding amd64 to ftp-master. All (or all
patched packages as a minimum) packages will be recompiled and
reuploaded for that. The debian-amd64 port is ready to be added so
this could be done any day now.
The debian-amd64 port has decided to use amd64 instead of x86-64 even
before I joined up last year and I have seen no reasonable argument to
revert that decision now. Please follow the wishes of the port and
keep it amd64.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: