Re: Support now in dpkg
On 04-Jun-02 17:51, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Hi all, you'll mostly be pleased to know that dpkg in unstable now
> supports your architecture; hopefully this is the first step towards
> consideration for archive addition.
Thank you for including the amd64/x86_64 port into dpkg.
> The archive name that has been chosen is "x86-64", which I understand
> might upset a few people who like the other name.
My impression is that most people working on the Debian amd64 port
do not like the name 'amd64' very much. I never understood
why the name was changed from x86-64 to amd64 last year.
> * it doesn't include unnecessary marketing connotations, and avoids
> the issue whether we even *can* use AMD's name in vain
To use a more neutral name is really a good thing IMHO.
> The disadvantages are:
> * it isn't what you have been using to-date
Obviously, there will be complaints about the work that the name change
> The second is due to "_" being used as a filename separator; I'd like to
> investigate what actually *relies* on this and potentially change the
> architecture at a later date (still before archive addition) to x86_64
> to totally match the others -- we'll see how that plays out.
I created a small test archive using x86_64 (not x86-64) and at least dpkg
and apt seemed to work with that name.
I believe that x86_64 should be used as the Debian arch name
to avoid confusions between the name that is used
by the toolchain and the kernel (x86_64)
and a slightly different Debian arch name (x86-64).
Please consider to change the arch name to 'x86_64'. Some tools and scripts
will have to be adapted to work with the '_' in the name
but I think it will be possible to fix them without too many problems.
(The '-' in 'x86-64' might also cause some trouble).