Re: [Fwd: ia64 netinstboot image]

[Brian Szymanski <skibrianski@gmail.com>]

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:  skibrianski@gmail.com
skype:  xbrianskix
cell:   +1 202 747 4019
jabber: skibrianski@gmail.com
aim:    xbrianskix
msn:    xbrianskix@hotmail.com

Ex cibus merda