Re: Port Name: A Vote
Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> writes:
> On Wed, 2004-06-09 at 03:50 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Gwenole Beauchesne <gbeauchesne@mandrakesoft.com> writes:
>>
> [snip]
>> > Nowadays, choice is more complicated with EM64T platforms getting
>> > around. Since both are ISA compatible (modulo 3dNow!), it would not
>> > make sense to introduce an "em64t" port name, at first sight. Besides,
>> > it's not fair to use "amd64" either in that case. Objectively, we
>> > would be left with "x86_64" which exactly means "64-bit extended x86
>> > architectures". After all, there were even LSB 1.x drafts mentioning
>> > x86_64, though you can read AMD64 in 2.0 drafts instead.
>>
>> Great, got an url for that? This would be a major argument towards amd64.
>
> http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/specs.php
> http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/booksets/LSB-Core-AMD64/LSB-Core-AMD64.html
>
> That wasn't very hard to find. And it only refers to AMD64. No
> mention of x86_64 that I could find.
LSB requires:
proginterp /lib64/ld-lsb-x86-64.so.1
but we only have:
lrwxr-xr-x 1 root root 11 Jun 8 06:13 /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 -> ld-2.3.2.so*
Looks like the LSB draft is a soname behind current versions.
Apart from that it looks like they use x86-64 for the GNU arch
(i.e. in the ld name) but amd64 for the marketing. Just like
Debian-amd64 currently does.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: