Tres writes: > Mark Hammond wrote: > >> At 04:00 PM 7/18/2007 +1000, Mark Hammond wrote: > >>> This will result in both the final version of most bdist_* > >> installations > >>> having the architecture in the filename. It also has the > >> nice side effect > >>> of having the temp directories used by these commands include the > >>> architecture in their names, meaning its possible to build > >> multiple Windows > >>> architectures from the same build tree, although that is not > >> the primary > >>> motivation. > >> I presume the intention of this is to have it end up as either > >> 'win32' or 'win64', yes? > > > > Probably 'win32', 'amd64' or 'itanium' - I'm not worried > about the specific > > strings, but there would need to be different ones for each > of the 64bit > > architectures. > > Why would you use processor type IDs to indicate Windows-specifc > platforms? Lots of systems running on AMD64 boxen don't run windows > (can't say "lots" and "Itanium" in the same sentence, I guess, but I > know for a fact that OpenVMS is running on Itanium, at least).
Yes, I agree with that. I'm not too worried about what the specific strings are, and I agree they should include the OS *and* the architecture (eg, 'win32', 'win-amdx64' or 'win-itanium' might be suitable, or maybe win64-amd/win64-itanium). However, I'm just trying to take things one step at a time - if we can agree that having the same string for all architectures is bad, we can then move forward into a "bike-shed" discussion of what the new strings should be :) I'm yet to hear anyone explicitly agree with me that the current situation needs changing though. Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
