| 1 |
On Thu, 2004-10-14 at 17:57, Jason Huebel wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tuesday 12 October 2004 4:37 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Also, I suggest we drop the amd64 keyword and just use x86 to save |
| 4 |
> > space, since we all know fine well that amd64 is just like x86 with a |
| 5 |
> > few extra bits stuck onto the end. Or rather, the start, since x86 gets |
| 6 |
> > its bytes backwards... |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I'll be very succinct here... NO. Your assumption is incorrect. Period. Don't |
| 9 |
> bring it up again. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Actually, the trustees, in an overwhelming 12-3 vote late yesterday |
| 12 |
afternoon (UTC), decided that his assumption IS correct, and that |
| 13 |
measures should be taken immediately to rectify the cruftiness of an |
| 14 |
"amd64" keyword. Additionally, we then pre-empt AMD's lawyers from |
| 15 |
issuing a cease-and-desist on their copywritten letters (those being |
| 16 |
capital a, capital m, and capital d in a specific order). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Sorry, but that's just how it is... |
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Seemant Kulleen |
| 21 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~seemant |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3458780E |
| 24 |
Key fingerprint = 23A9 7CB5 9BBB 4F8D 549B 6593 EDA2 65D8 3458 780E |
Archives