Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword amd64 -> x86_64
On 29-02-2008 08:12:34 +0100, Ben de Groot wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Bernd Steinhauser wrote: > |> Though, if for instance amd64-fbsd would be introduced, > | Will that happen? (Asking because I might be interested in testing such > | a setup.) > > I would be interested as well, especially if based on FreeBSD-7. That already happened, but probably not in the way you're looking for. > | Wouldn't it be more clean if it is amd64 just like the Linux one? > | Because the arch basically is the same. I think that > | amd64(-linux) -- x86_64-fbsd > | x86(-linux) -- x86-fbsd > | > | would be more confusing than > | amd64(-linux) -- amd64-fbsd > | x86(-linux) -- x86-fbsd > > I agree, and vote for consistency as well. Yes, but as mentioned before, my problem is that amd64-macos really doesn't make any sense to me. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword amd64 -> x86_64
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bernd Steinhauser wrote: |> Though, if for instance amd64-fbsd would be introduced, | Will that happen? (Asking because I might be interested in testing such | a setup.) I would be interested as well, especially if based on FreeBSD-7. | Wouldn't it be more clean if it is amd64 just like the Linux one? | Because the arch basically is the same. I think that | amd64(-linux) -- x86_64-fbsd | x86(-linux) -- x86-fbsd | | would be more confusing than | amd64(-linux) -- amd64-fbsd | x86(-linux) -- x86-fbsd I agree, and vote for consistency as well. Ben -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHx7Bii+u7I1rvkiYRAsEcAKC/ypIBrKTvCmAn+YCQd2qYMaRQsACglbnu 4n7VUnas2MX3MPGWrVNvZcQ= =Lhml -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword amd64 -> x86_64
Fabian Groffen schrieb: Though, if for instance amd64-fbsd would be introduced, Will that happen? (Asking because I might be interested in testing such a setup.) I think this keyword should have something more generic arch instead, like the x64 we use in prefix now Wouldn't it be more clean if it is amd64 just like the Linux one? Because the arch basically is the same. I think that amd64(-linux) -- x86_64-fbsd x86(-linux) -- x86-fbsd would be more confusing than amd64(-linux) -- amd64-fbsd x86(-linux) -- x86-fbsd Bernd -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword amd64 -> x86_64
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:40:23 +0100 Fabian Groffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 20-02-2008 19:23:26 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:59:11 -0500 > > "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Please excuse my ignorance if this is a naive comment or has been > > > brought up before. With all the non amd processors now with 64bit > > > support. amd64 as a keyword seems a bit odd and off maybe. > > > > > > What's the possibility of switching amd64 to x86_64? > > > > > > Unless the work to do that is greater than the value of the > > > change. > > > > As the benefit is close to nothing IMO the required work is > > definitely greater by several orders of magnitude. > > Well, that depends a bit. We basically introduced x64 a shorthand, > and changed some keywords in prefix, of which I just finished the > transition. It's basically just setting the new keyword in the > profiles, and then gradually changing the keywords, e.g. on a repoman > commit. That's sort of how I did it. You don't need any Portage > support, IMHO. - sorry, but comparing prefix with its limited and (I assume) technically skilled userbase that is used to change to the main tree where people sometimes don't update their system for years is like comparing apples and oranges - you forgot the necessary updates to documentation and renaming of other amd64 related stuff, only changing the keyword would make things worse IMO - what I wanted to say is that any amount of work required to realize this is greater than the benefit - x64 is IMO the worst name for the architecture (originally a MS marketing term later adopted by Sun, looks too similar to x86, name doesn't make any sense really if you compare it to x86) Marius -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword amd64 -> x86_64
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:59:11 -0500 "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Unless the work to do that is greater than the value of the change. It most likely is. And beside of that: amd64 is the technically correct term. :p signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword amd64 -> x86_64
On 20-02-2008 19:23:26 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: > On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:59:11 -0500 > "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Please excuse my ignorance if this is a naive comment or has been > > brought up before. With all the non amd processors now with 64bit > > support. amd64 as a keyword seems a bit odd and off maybe. > > > > What's the possibility of switching amd64 to x86_64? > > > > Unless the work to do that is greater than the value of the change. > > As the benefit is close to nothing IMO the required work is definitely > greater by several orders of magnitude. Well, that depends a bit. We basically introduced x64 a shorthand, and changed some keywords in prefix, of which I just finished the transition. It's basically just setting the new keyword in the profiles, and then gradually changing the keywords, e.g. on a repoman commit. That's sort of how I did it. You don't need any Portage support, IMHO. But I think for the current amd64 keyword, it's not worth the hassle to change it. Though, if for instance amd64-fbsd would be introduced, I think this keyword should have something more generic arch instead, like the x64 we use in prefix now. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword amd64 -> x86_64
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:59:11 -0500 "William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please excuse my ignorance if this is a naive comment or has been > brought up before. With all the non amd processors now with 64bit > support. amd64 as a keyword seems a bit odd and off maybe. > > What's the possibility of switching amd64 to x86_64? > > Unless the work to do that is greater than the value of the change. As the benefit is close to nothing IMO the required work is definitely greater by several orders of magnitude. Marius -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword amd64 -> x86_64
William L. Thomson Jr. a écrit : Please excuse my ignorance if this is a naive comment or has been brought up before. With all the non amd processors now with 64bit support. amd64 as a keyword seems a bit odd and off maybe. I think we'd already discussed this a while back, and decided not to change it. (I don't remember the final reasons though) I for one don't really care, except that "x86_64" is longer to type than "amd64" ;) That's the only reason I could find. Rémi -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Keyword amd64 -> x86_64
Please excuse my ignorance if this is a naive comment or has been brought up before. With all the non amd processors now with 64bit support. amd64 as a keyword seems a bit odd and off maybe. What's the possibility of switching amd64 to x86_64? Unless the work to do that is greater than the value of the change. I was thinking if portage could be updated to see both as the same arch. Then we could transition ebuilds at their own pace. No massive changes to tree. Not sure how it would play with like use amd64, if statements, etc Anyway just a thought. Not one of any importance to me. So feel free to bash the idea to hell :) Plz not me, I am doing a good job on my own of writing my own ticket to hell ;) -- William L. Thomson Jr. Gentoo/amd64/Java signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
