On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 21:27 +0200, Simon Paillard wrote: > Hi, > > [CC the other Bug# against release-notes] > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 02:52:55AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > Package: www.debian.org > > Severity: normal > > > > Various pages use the long architecture names 'AMD64' and 'Intel x86' > > for our architectures 'amd64' and 'i386'. The name 'AMD64' sometimes > > confuses users with Intel x86-64 chips, who instead download the > > installer or CD images for ia64. This is a waste of time and > > bandwidth for all concerned. The name 'Intel x86' is also inaccurate > > in that the i386 architecture runs on 32-bit x86 processors from many > > vendors. > > > > I recommend the names '32-bit PC' and '64-bit PC' - they are not > > pedantically correct, but people should understand what they mean. > > Or: 32-bit PC (i386) | 64-bit PC (amd64) > (in order to keep in mind the official name in the archive). > > I fully agree. We received many reports/doubts of users on debian-www. > > For the record, the subject has been discussed in November: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-www/2009/11/threads.html#00005 > FJP position: http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot/2009/11/msg00515.html > > The point of FJP is however to keep consistency between displayed names > and architecture name. His major point seems to be that the current layout sucks, which I fully agree with. I would suggest using lists or tables with one line per architecture, sorted in reverse order of popularity (according to popcon). > It may be relevant to change amd64 to something else, but may need > much larger changes in Debian.. [...] The official short names really cannot be changed. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part