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

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
will cause.

> 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).

Andreas Jochens

Reply to: