Re: Opteron support in dpkg
John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 02:21:02AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Alex Perry <alex.perry@qm.com> writes:
>>
>> > I like John's summary (below). To add my 2c, as someone who has been
>> > putting in sweat on this port,
>> ...
>> > "sparc" "i386" and similar names. For complete consistency, which was
>> > the asserted reason for the name change, we should use "opteron" as
>> > the architecture on that basis.
>>
>> Opteron is the first alternative that wouldn't cause problems and
+ technical
>> isn't braindead. - and _ in the name are not acceptable from a
>> technical point.
>
> I'm not sure it makes sense. I have an Athlon64. Why would I assume
> that something named "opteron" would work for me? To me, that seems
> similar to naming something "pentium-ii".
Oh yeah. Debian-Athlon(tm)64. The tradename is even shown in
/proc/cpuinfo. :-P Lets see how they like that.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: