RE: Port Name: A Vote
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 marc.miller@amd.com wrote:
> I'd just like to point out to the greater community that the rest of the
> Linux universe uses x86_64 as the generic string to describe this
> architecture (it's not tied to a particular brand name, and it avoids
> the problems of parsing package names using hyphens),
Our problem comes from '_' being even worse when it comes to parsing and
handling of package names than '-', it already has special meaning. Also,
'_' can't be mapped into dns which also has relevance for arch naming.
Also, when it comes to linux distribution arch names, "amd64" seems at
least as popular as "x86_64", see recent surveys posted here.
> and if Debian
> wants to be compatible with other Linuxes, it would be best to follow
> the same conventions. That's speaking on behalf of the AMD Linux team,
> and not just my own opinion. Furthermore, it's also AMD's preference
> that the x86_64 port becomes known as the port for AMD's AMD64 family of
> processors.
Well, we can't call it "x86_64" because of technical issues.
I also happen to find it a pretty bad name because it is hard to spell and
pronounce, but that's a personal preference.
> As for the question of whether that same port will support of Intel's
> EM64T family of processors, that's something for the community to
> decide. We encourage the Debian community to think ahead when deciding
> on conventions to be used far into the future.
Well, I guess that would depend if they are going to be binary compatible
with the toolchain we're using and building. Otherwise it would have to be
a new port by those who care about those chips. Personally I haven't seen
them or bothered to dig through the specs in sufficient detail to
determine this.
Now, if they aren't binary compatible but can run under the same kernel,
multi-arch will solve this resonably well with two ports.
If there was someone on this list that has such a chip, have you tried
installing debian-amd64 on it? Did it work?
> Microsoft is calling it "x64" (see
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/may04/05-04WinHEC2004KeynotePR.asp).
This is the only resonable alternative to "amd64" I've heard suggested so
far, seen as a name. The up side is that microsoft might make it
recognized. Or they might not, and it is probably not a good idea to sit
around until they have shipped a product and see what they call it in
marketing. And as has been pointed out, several linux distributions do use
"amd64" today, "x64" would be yet another name and this architecture
already has a couple too many.
/Mattias Wadenstein
Reply to: