I'd vote for x86_64 or amd64 (or even EM64T), but not "x64" (which is
gibberish).
On Mon, 20 Feb 2017, Richard Hipp wrote:
On 2/20/17, Emil Totev <em...@tot-consult.com> wrote:
Hi
There are still inconsistencies in the binary downloads for linux at
fossil's web site.
File fossil-linux-x86-1.37.tar.gz contains a x64 (64-bit) executable.
There seems to be no 32-bit linux executable download.
Could someone please fix that for this and future builds?
I suspect that the Mac and OpenBSD builds are 64-bits too. I suppose
we could produce 32-bit binaries, but I worry that they would be
largely untested, since I use 64-bit machines almost exclusively, as I
suspect most of the other Fossil developers do as well. If you really
need a 32-bit binary, you can always build your own use the source
tarball, right?
Or, perhaps you are simply asking that the downloads be relabeled from
"x86" to "x64"?
--
D. Richard Hipp
d...@sqlite.org
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
