| 1 |
On 27-03-2017 09:56:50 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 2 |
> >>>>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> >> > When you say "arch" you actually mean a keyword as per GLEP-53[1] |
| 5 |
> >> > right? |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> Which doesn't agree with actual usage in the tree, though. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> > That surprises me. Do you have an example of that? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> The GLEP says about the OS suffix: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> "The right hand part indicates the operating system or distribution, |
| 14 |
> such as linux, macos, solaris or fbsd. If the right hand part is |
| 15 |
> omitted, it implies the operating system/distribution type is |
| 16 |
> GNU/Linux." |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> So if I understand this correctly, x86-linux should be equivalent to |
| 19 |
> x86. But in reality, the linux suffix denotes that it is a prefix |
| 20 |
> arch. I'm not saying that this is bad, only it's not what the GLEP |
| 21 |
> says. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I see. The lack of explicit mentioning what the difference means allows |
| 24 |
for different interpretations. I always *assumed* it meant Gentoo (1 |
| 25 |
part) vs Gentoo/Alt (2 parts). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> Until recently there was also x64-freebsd vs amd64-fbsd, where both |
| 28 |
> the arch and the OS part denoted the same, but used different tokens |
| 29 |
> to distinguish between prefix and non-prefix. (And I don't understand |
| 30 |
> why amd64 is called x64 on prefix. A different OS suffix should be |
| 31 |
> sufficient.) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
It kind of proves the point that two fields in a keyword isn't "enough |
| 34 |
for everyone". |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Back to the topic of the thread, is it possible to make the difference |
| 37 |
between e.g. x86, x86-linux, x86-solaris and x86-macos in this proposal? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Thanks, |
| 40 |
Fabian |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> >> > [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:53 |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 48 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives