dann frazier wrote:
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 02:25:31PM +0400, Paul A. Anokhin wrote:It seems like a half of this maillist traffic is generated by people mistakingly trying to use ia64 instead of x86-64 version. And I have to admit that compared to the rest of the internet this is pretty good error ratio :) Probably the ia64 port should be named something like "ipf" or "itanium" to avoid confusion. After all, ia64 is no longer the official name for the architecture AFAIK, and I think the change was caused by the same reason.Renaming a port because of something like this isn't really an option
Just to play devil's advocate, why not?
- a better answer, imo, would be to modify the ia64 cds to display a splash screen on x86 hardware that explains the issue.
I disagree -- bandwidth is not cheap for everyone, and it seems to me reducing the number of people who mistakenly download ia64 images is the right fix. I also don't like the idea of having fewer packages and a potentially tricky-to-get-right multiboot image on my CD for the silly people who do that.
-- Brian Szymanski email: email@example.com skype: xbrianskix cell: +1 202 747 4019 jabber: firstname.lastname@example.org aim: xbrianskix msn: email@example.com Ex cibus merda