On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 03:50:43AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Gwenole Beauchesne <gbeauchesne@mandrakesoft.com> writes: > > 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. I pointed out earlier in the thread that LSB 2.0 draft refers to the arch as AMD64 but actually states the the arch name must be x86_64 for packaging purposes or have a way to map to it. Chris
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature