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

Re: Bug#254598: Name of the Debian x86-64/AMD64 port

On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 09:08:33PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > thing that uses x86_64 exclusively is the _Linux_ kernel. As I mentioned
> > in the previous email out of the various os/dist that support the
> > x86_64/amd64 arch 8 out of 9 call it _amd64_. That is a fairly clear
> > majority.
> You and Scott seem to be saying opposite things here. Can you guys get the
> facts straight please?

The last post I made wrt docs/internal is an accurate reflection of what
each os/dist uses. Scott seems to want to ignore the facts. The tools
even refer to amd64 but (iirc) Scott has said that it only uses them for
the BSDs. Between the fact that Debian supports the BSDs as well as
that the other dists refer to the arch as "amd64" in docs as well as
internally (Gentoo/Mandrake/RHEL) I think it makes the most sense to
keep our arch naming uniform with them and across all of Debian. If we
call the Linux arch "x86_64" what will call kfreebsd port?
"kfreebsd-amd64" like freebsd calls it or "kfreebsd-x86_64" to stay
uniform with the linux port? If we use "amd64" for all it is much
cleaner imho. Also, we wouldn't have to deal with various utility breakage
from the "_", aiui DAK and various mirroring scripts would be affected
along with SCC. The Debian amd64 port team is hoping to be able to
release with Sarge since the port is already more compiled than most of
the "ready" archs and has a working debian-installer. Having to fix all
the scripts first would likely significantly delay its addition to the
archive. If we do decide not to use "amd64" though imho we should only
consider "x86_64" as the alternative since none of the other variations
are used by anyone. Also "x86-64" would cause confusion in debian/rules
and various other scripts because you would see both "x86_64" and
"x86-64" in use in the for different purposes and someone would
inevitably typo it.

> > Even the LSB refers to the arch as amd64 everywhere but the packaging
> > part, the only reason I can tell that x86_64 is used for packaging is
> Well, we are talking about packaging and the arch name in the LSB as
> used for packaging is relevent and isn't likely to change.

Which is why "x86_64" is a good alternative to "amd64" but "x86-64" is


Chris Cheney

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: