Hello.
On 03/20/2012 10:24, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message<20120319215802.gc1...@azathoth.lan>, Baptiste Daroussin writes:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:35:08PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
here is the identification I propose:
arch-class-os-majorversion(-archi_specific_extension)
Gi
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 06:24:37AM +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <20120319215802.gc1...@azathoth.lan>, Baptiste Daroussin writes:
>
> >On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:35:08PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> In order to identify architectures I need to find a uniq
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:35:08PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In order to identify architectures I need to find a uniq id for every
> possibilities (for pkgng)
>
> here is the identification I propose:
>
> arch-class-os-majorversion(-archi_specific_extension)
>
> arch can be
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:19:36AM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:35:08PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > In order to identify architectures I need to find a uniq id for every
> > possibilities (for pkgng)
> >
> > here is the identification I pr
IMHO,
32 / 64 = easily parsable and represent integer.
i386/amd64 - wellknown names, but this info about processor bits not lies
in math.
My point is i386 is arch, so can be kept, while 32 is processor bit count.
If you'll keep 32/64 various checks in side software will be simple (if you
have 32
We should probably pad the version number, and shorten things up..
similar to:
package-1.2-fbsd09.1-x86.pkg
package-1.2-fbsd09.1-x64.pkg
package-1.2-fbsd09.1-ppc.pkg
package-1.2-fbsd09.1-ppc64.pkg
package-1.2-fbsd09.1-arm.pkg
For app "Package" version 1.2, on FreeBSD 9.1
drop the .1 for .0 vers
On 20 Mar 2012, at 10:20, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> i386-32 and amd64-64 is weird and confusing.
>
> IMO, you should go either with x86-{32,64} names, or with i386/amd64,
> not with a mix.
Would we ever want to support something like x32 from Linux (which might be
amd64-32)?
http://www.linu
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 07:20:52AM -0500, Chuck Burns wrote:
> We should probably pad the version number, and shorten things up..
> similar to:
>
> package-1.2-fbsd09.1-x86.pkg
> package-1.2-fbsd09.1-x64.pkg
> package-1.2-fbsd09.1-ppc.pkg
> package-1.2-fbsd09.1-ppc64.pkg
> package-1.2-fbsd09.1-ar
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 02:26:42PM +, Bruce Cran wrote:
>
> On 20 Mar 2012, at 10:20, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>
> > i386-32 and amd64-64 is weird and confusing.
> >
> > IMO, you should go either with x86-{32,64} names, or with i386/amd64,
> > not with a mix.
>
> Would we ever want to sup
on 20/03/2012 16:39 Baptiste Daroussin said the following:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 07:20:52AM -0500, Chuck Burns wrote:
>> We should probably pad the version number, and shorten things up..
>> similar to:
>>
>> package-1.2-fbsd09.1-x86.pkg
>> package-1.2-fbsd09.1-x64.pkg
>> package-1.2-fbsd09.1-
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 05:18:12PM +0200, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 20/03/2012 16:39 Baptiste Daroussin said the following:
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 07:20:52AM -0500, Chuck Burns wrote:
> >> We should probably pad the version number, and shorten things up..
> >> similar to:
> >>
> >> package-1.2
11 matches
Mail list logo
