Bug#254598: marked as done (Name of the Debian x86-64/AMD64 port)
Your message dated Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:47:30 -0400
with message-id <E1Bme6k-00031e-00@newraff.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#252346: fixed in dpkg 1.10.23
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Jun 2004 19:01:08 +0000
>From scott@netsplit.com Tue Jun 15 12:01:08 2004
Return-path: <scott@netsplit.com>
Received: from populous.netsplit.com (mailgate.netsplit.com) [62.49.129.34] (qmailr)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BaJBE-0005or-00; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 12:01:08 -0700
Received: (qmail 6953 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2004 19:01:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO descent.netsplit.com) (scott@62.49.129.40)
by populous.netsplit.com with RC4-MD5 encrypted SMTP; 15 Jun 2004 19:01:06 -0000
Subject: Name of the Debian x86-64/AMD64 port
From: Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-+Nrmb3kpB/qPt/AUpQzt"
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:01:07 +0100
Message-Id: <1087326067.13418.53.camel@descent.netsplit.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 1.5.9.1
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.5 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_30,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
--=-+Nrmb3kpB/qPt/AUpQzt
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Package: tech-ctte
dpkg support for this architecture was added in 1.10.22 with the name
"x86-64"; up until this point the unofficial[0] port had been using the
name "amd64" which I felt had issues -- namely that the dpkg
architecture name should match the kernel architecture name as closely
as possible which "amd64" does not.
Several of the people working on the port have expressed outcry at this
and questioned whether it was indeed my decision to select the name for
the architecture.
I'd therefore like the place the following questions before the
technical committee:
"May the dpkg and/or apt maintainers select the name of an
architecture?"
and if the answer to that is negative:
"What name for the x86-64/AMD64 architecture should be used?"
Please note that in the latter question we are only asking for a
decision on the name itself and not on that architecture's status within
Debian.
The candidate architecture names are as follows. I've tried to be fair
in listing each name's positive and negative points and tried to avoid
(other than the Vendor bit, which wanted explaining) listing other
candidate's positives as negatives for the rest.
"x86_64"
+ Matches the Linux kernel architecture name
$ uname -m
x86_64
+ Matches the architecture portion of the GNU triplet
$ /usr/share/misc/config.guess
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
+ Matches that used by RPM-based distributions such as Fedora, RedHat
(next release onwards), and SuSE.
+ Its the packaging architecture name mandated by the LSB.
<http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/book/Packaging-AMD64/Packaging-AMD64.txt=
>
- Currently "_" is used as a component separator in deb filenames
therefore is forbidden in both package and architecture names.
Modifying policy to allow "_" in the architecture name would still
disallow placing the architecture in package names
(e.g. kernel-package-x86_64).
Alternatively the name would have to be mangled to (e.g.) "x86-64".
- "_" is also an illegal character in hostnames, the "second class
citizen" work will provide ftp.$ARCH.debian.org names for mirrors
depending on their participation.
This $ARCH would have to be mangled to (e.g.) "x86-64".
"x86-64" (favoured by dpkg and apt maintainers, and ftpmaster)
+ The original AMD name for the architecture.
+ Matches the ELF platform name
$ echo /lib64/ld-linux-*.so.2
/lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2
+ Although it doesn't match the "x86_64" used elsewhere precisely,
it could be close enough to not confuse people and gains the plus
points of "x86_64" as a result without the negative mangling points.
- Alternatively it's close-but-not-exactness could cause additional
confusion.
- There has been a convention that "-" in architecture names separates
kernel and architecture for the non-Linux ports (e.g. freebsd-i386).
"amd64" (favoured by members of the porting team)
+ The current AMD name for the architecture.
+ Has been the "working name" for some time, so there already exists a
large collection of debs built with this despite lack of any support
in the official dpkg line.
+ Used by Gentoo, RedHat (they are changing to x86_64 though),
Mandrake (though they might change to x86_64 to conform to LSB and
RPM) and the BSDs.
- Vendor specific, Intel chip owners might not realise this is their
architecture. (this is more of a problem than "i386" which doesn't
*explicitly* say "Intel")
? The porters claim there is considerable community recognition of
this name over any other, yet when they sent their
"Debian AMD64 Port Ready" mail to LWN, LWN changed the title to
"Debian x86_64 port ready". <http://lwn.net/Articles/89290/>
"ia32e"
- It's one of Intel's names for the architecture, except they keep
changing their minds. Here for completeness only.
"em64t"
- It's one of Intel's names for the architecture, except they keep
changing their minds. Here for completeness only.
something else?
Perhaps tech-ctte can come up with an alternate name not on the list?
Scott
[0] in that it has not yet been added to the archive.
--=20
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
--=-+Nrmb3kpB/qPt/AUpQzt
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBAz0dzIexP3IStZ2wRAoeiAKCFcVRxTmuoVSVqM6YqPXt1uMDGPwCfdMMT
RzRsWoi7bC9WYYJ3bAFhhsc=
=lonJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-+Nrmb3kpB/qPt/AUpQzt--
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 252346-close) by bugs.debian.org; 19 Jul 2004 19:53:55 +0000
>From katie@ftp-master.debian.org Mon Jul 19 12:53:55 2004
Return-path: <katie@ftp-master.debian.org>
Received: from newraff.debian.org [208.185.25.31] (mail)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BmeCx-0002jy-00; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:53:55 -0700
Received: from katie by newraff.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1Bme6k-00031e-00; Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:47:30 -0400
From: Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com>
To: 252346-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.51 $
Subject: Bug#252346: fixed in dpkg 1.10.23
Message-Id: <E1Bme6k-00031e-00@newraff.debian.org>
Sender: Archive Administrator <katie@ftp-master.debian.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:47:30 -0400
Delivered-To: 252346-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 7
Source: dpkg
Source-Version: 1.10.23
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
dpkg, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:
dpkg-dev_1.10.23_all.deb
to pool/main/d/dpkg/dpkg-dev_1.10.23_all.deb
dpkg-doc_1.10.23_all.deb
to pool/main/d/dpkg/dpkg-doc_1.10.23_all.deb
dpkg_1.10.23.dsc
to pool/main/d/dpkg/dpkg_1.10.23.dsc
dpkg_1.10.23.tar.gz
to pool/main/d/dpkg/dpkg_1.10.23.tar.gz
dpkg_1.10.23_i386.deb
to pool/main/d/dpkg/dpkg_1.10.23_i386.deb
dselect_1.10.23_i386.deb
to pool/main/d/dpkg/dselect_1.10.23_i386.deb
A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.
Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to 252346@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com> (supplier of updated dpkg package)
(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:52:14 +0100
Source: dpkg
Binary: dpkg-doc dpkg dselect dpkg-dev dpkg-static
Architecture: source all i386
Version: 1.10.23
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Dpkg Development <debian-dpkg@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Scott James Remnant <scott@netsplit.com>
Description:
dpkg - Package maintenance system for Debian
dpkg-dev - Package building tools for Debian
dpkg-doc - Dpkg Internals Documentation
dselect - a user tool to manage Debian packages
Closes: 133640 246158 246159 246160 246161 246162 246163 246164 252346 252407 252586 254175 254180 254209 254590 254598 256302
Changes:
dpkg (1.10.23) unstable; urgency=low
.
The "Let the Wookie win" Release.
.
* Updated hurd start-stop-daemon support. Closes: #133640, #254180.
* Removed usage of non-POSIX test options. Closes: #256302.
.
* Architecture Support:
- Renamed x86-64 to amd64. Closes: #252346, #254598.
* Documentation:
- Correct typo in dpkg-divert(8). Closes: #254175.
* New Translations:
- Korean (Changwoo Ryu). Closes: #254590.
* Updated Translations:
- Catalan (Jordi Mallach).
- Danish (Claus Hindsgaul). Closes: #252407.
- French (Christian Perrier). Closes: #252586.
- Italian (Lele Gaifax).
- Polish (Bartosz Fenski). Closes: #254209.
- Spanish manpages (Ruben Porras). Closes: #246158, #246159, #246160,
#246161, #246162, #246163, #246164.
Files:
2eb35b462d81826455016fad6c5e8f3a 798 base required dpkg_1.10.23.dsc
94a845ab0e14deb196d43e03c48a16b9 1763248 base required dpkg_1.10.23.tar.gz
d6498369a2404180e10950ff1162ccec 1341122 base required dpkg_1.10.23_i386.deb
edf5d858fc64757ef43855935ff961c7 119848 base required dselect_1.10.23_i386.deb
2eabc2d309da69a9cb0449652e65221b 165728 utils standard dpkg-dev_1.10.23_all.deb
bb925ebd2e7c47eacab34ed4cc171941 10612 doc optional dpkg-doc_1.10.23_all.deb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFA/BqrIexP3IStZ2wRAn7qAJ45IerZoUtRwmicirNhEE6BFlbESACgo//G
tnS5yOFrND1ZGS/aaL8BZfs=
=SC/e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: