On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 09:25:37AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > Thanks to all answers, I see the proper reason. > > At Wed, 16 Jun 2004 09:48:02 +0300, > Alexander Rapp wrote: > > x86-64 creates problems because x86-64-pc-linux matches x86-*-linux, > > which would cause many build scripts to think they were on regular x86 > > and build accordingly. x86_64 is somewhat rpm-driven, in that clearly > > nobody thought about the meaning of _ in debian. Also, if I recall > > correctly more recent LSB documents refer to the architecture as "amd64" > > rather than "x86_64" or similar. > > It's interesting. Does this mean LSB will describe amd64 package name > as both "amd64" and "x86_64" at the same time? Or only "amd64"? Everywhere but the actual packaging document it refers to it as amd64 (aiui). In the packaging document it says that a compliant dist must be able to install a lsb x86_64 rpm. This is probably due to the fact that normal rpm refers to it as x86_64 currently. However, even the rpm based dists other than Fedora call the arch itself amd64, and only refer to x86_64 in the rpm filenames. Chris
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature