| 1 |
Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> Ben de Groot wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Bernd Steinhauser wrote: |
| 4 |
>> | Wouldn't it be more clean if it is amd64 just like the Linux one? |
| 5 |
>> | Because the arch basically is the same. I think that |
| 6 |
>> | amd64(-linux) -- x86_64-fbsd |
| 7 |
>> | x86(-linux) -- x86-fbsd |
| 8 |
>> | |
| 9 |
>> | would be more confusing than |
| 10 |
>> | amd64(-linux) -- amd64-fbsd |
| 11 |
>> | x86(-linux) -- x86-fbsd |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> I agree, and vote for consistency as well. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Yes, but as mentioned before, my problem is that amd64-macos really |
| 16 |
> doesn't make any sense to me. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
I accept that it seems odd, but EM64T is a clone of amd64 in the same way |
| 19 |
that amd32 is a clone of x86. If we're consistent across the board, it |
| 20 |
leads to less confusion, once a user knows they're on amd64 (I'm thinking |
| 21 |
of support questions more than anything.) Whatever you decide to call it |
| 22 |
for macos/prefix, I'd vote against x86_64-fbsd and for amd64-fbsd, since |
| 23 |
renaming amd64 is not going to happen afaict. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives