| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 17:01 +0200, Francesco R wrote: |
| 2 |
> > Is this also a good time to note that the amd64 and x86 could |
| 3 |
> > *easily* be covered under the same keyword? We cover a large |
| 4 |
> > variety of mips machines/userlands under one keyword, with |
| 5 |
> > differences much more significant then that between x86 and amd64. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Sorry I disagree with this, differences exists and sometimes are a |
| 8 |
> problem. Some package and library don't compile cleanly under amd64 arch. |
| 9 |
> On few but existant cases it's good to have two different archs. Not |
| 10 |
> even going near the analizing the differences in the profiles. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Actually, they're correct. Both amd64 and x86 could be controlled by |
| 13 |
the same keyword. The problem really lies in the knowledge base of our |
| 14 |
developers. I'm not knocking anyone, but if you haven't run on a 64-bit |
| 15 |
architecture, then you wouldn't understand how to troubleshoot and fix |
| 16 |
issues with it. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 20 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager |
| 21 |
Games - Developer |
| 22 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives