[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: who did define x86_64 in LSB?



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


Reply to: