| 1 |
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 17:56:37 +0200 |
| 2 |
Marius Mauch <genone@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:48:19 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > Whatever. Some of you seem to have some quite agressive dislikement |
| 8 |
> > to it. In the end it's just a name/tag. I guess I could live with |
| 9 |
> > anything, including c3p0. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Well, while I dislike x64 I'm more concerned about using different |
| 12 |
> names (amd64 and x64) for the same architecture (same would apply if |
| 13 |
> you had used i386 or ia32 in some cases instead of x86) and was just |
| 14 |
> checking if there was any functional reason for that difference. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I would agree with this. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
As a user coming to the project, x64 is NOT the same arch as amd64, it |
| 19 |
has a different name! Select one name for the arch, and use it |
| 20 |
everywhere. Consistent naming is more important than having the name |
| 21 |
absolutely technically correct. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
And seeing as Gentoo uses amd64 for all those arches in the main tree |
| 24 |
with minimal problems, I personally would vote for using amd64 in -alt |
| 25 |
to retain consistency with the rest of Gentoo. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Just my 2 cents. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Rob. |
Archives