Bug#240896: not pending anymore
on Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:52:22PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman (mdz@debian.org) wrote:
> > I'm reverting the existing patch in CVS due to the controversy on
> > -amd64/-devel about the arch name. A new patch is welcome when the
> > issue is resolved.
>
> Right, we're working it out, but I havn't heard any real dissenters from
> amd64 yet. Those who don't like it should speak up please. If no one
> does then I guess we're all in agreement...
A couple of points.
1) I currently have a cpu made by intel that runs this arch.
2) I would like to see x86-64 or some variant of it that the tools don't
choke on be the official architecture name. It really describes what
is going on. The reason x86_64 is used is because various tools
choke on the x86-64.
3) I would like it if packages can use amd64 and possibly some of the aliases
from intel, the way i486/i586/i686 are used today on x86. That would
prevent the current set of packages from breaking, and allow for
flexibility in the future.
4) RPM at least as of 4.2 from rpm.org does not recognize amd64 at
all. So even if some distro packages can recognize this name it
is not LSB
<rant>
All of the amd64/em64t and other names are marketing departments
playing games. They will doubtless have other names in the future.
For marketing departments confusion can be a good thing. Notice that
Intel does not even officially admit they em64t == amd64. So choosing
the name at marking department requests is just silly, and will likely
to create more maintenance in the future.
</rant>
As for interpretation there are subtle differences between amd64,
em64t, and x86-64.
x86-64 is the common subset. amd64 includes 3DNow instructions, and
the NX bit. em64T includes sse3.
At least that is what I would expect from packages tagged with those
labels to indicate.
Eric
Reply to: