| 1 |
On 20-02-2008 19:23:26 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:59:11 -0500 |
| 3 |
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Please excuse my ignorance if this is a naive comment or has been |
| 6 |
> > brought up before. With all the non amd processors now with 64bit |
| 7 |
> > support. amd64 as a keyword seems a bit odd and off maybe. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > What's the possibility of switching amd64 to x86_64? |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Unless the work to do that is greater than the value of the change. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> As the benefit is close to nothing IMO the required work is definitely |
| 14 |
> greater by several orders of magnitude. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Well, that depends a bit. We basically introduced x64 a shorthand, and |
| 17 |
changed some keywords in prefix, of which I just finished the |
| 18 |
transition. It's basically just setting the new keyword in the |
| 19 |
profiles, and then gradually changing the keywords, e.g. on a repoman |
| 20 |
commit. That's sort of how I did it. You don't need any Portage |
| 21 |
support, IMHO. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
But I think for the current amd64 keyword, it's not worth the hassle to |
| 24 |
change it. Though, if for instance amd64-fbsd would be introduced, I |
| 25 |
think this keyword should have something more generic arch instead, like |
| 26 |
the x64 we use in prefix now. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 31 |
Gentoo on a different level |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives