[gentoo-dev] Keyword amd64 -> x86_64

[gentoo-dev] Keyword amd64 -> x86_64

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 784 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword amd64 -> x86_64

[Rémi Cardona]

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword amd64 -> x86_64

[Marius Mauch]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:59:11 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> 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

[Fabian Groffen]

On 20-02-2008 19:23:26 +0100, Marius Mauch wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:59:11 -0500
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> 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

[Christoph Mende]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 242 bytes --]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:59:11 -0500
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> 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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Keyword amd64 -> x86_64

[Ryan Hill]

Christoph Mende wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:59:11 -0500
> "William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjr@gentoo.org> 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

*sigh*  I know I'm going to regret going down this road, but, "lies!". ;)

AMD implemented x86-64, and marketed it as "AMD64".  Intel cloned it as "EM64T", 
later renamed "Intel 64".  GCC compiles for x86-64 which is the subset of the two.

But I agree, rekeywording amd64 to x86_64 would probably be more work than it's 
worth.


-- 
fonts,                                            by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwindows @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Keyword amd64 -> x86_64

[Andrew Cowie]

On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 19:42 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> But I agree, rekeywording amd64 to x86_64 would probably be more work than it's 
> worth.

Can we not just hardwire an alias into the emerge codebase?

I must admit, from a purely optical standpoint, the idea of saying my
system is "amd64" when it is nothing of the sort really grates. If,
internally, it just translated "x86_64" to "amd64" wouldn't that be ok?

AfC
Sydney


-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Keyword amd64 -> x86_64

[Olivier Crête]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 827 bytes --]


On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 16:27 +1100, Andrew Cowie wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 19:42 -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > But I agree, rekeywording amd64 to x86_64 would probably be more work than it's 
> > worth.
> 
> Can we not just hardwire an alias into the emerge codebase?
> 
> I must admit, from a purely optical standpoint, the idea of saying my
> system is "amd64" when it is nothing of the sort really grates. If,
> internally, it just translated "x86_64" to "amd64" wouldn't that be ok?

I really don't see the problem with AMD64, why it would be more wrong
than ia32 or x86 (based on Intel's product numbers!). AMD64 was invented
by AMD and they get to pick the name for it. The keyword amd64 in Gentoo
when Intel was still dismissing AMD64...



-- 
Olivier Crête
tester@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Keyword amd64 -> x86_64

[Ioannis Aslanidis]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8, Size: 700 bytes --]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:30 AM, Olivier Crête <tester@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>  I really don't see the problem with AMD64, why it would be more wrong
>  than ia32 or x86 (based on Intel's product numbers!). AMD64 was invented
>  by AMD and they get to pick the name for it. The keyword amd64 in Gentoo
>  when Intel was still dismissing AMD64...
>

I agree completely with Olivier, we use x86 based on Intel numbering,
because it was they who created it. We use amd64 because it was AMD
and not Intel who made the breakthrough. It is not only technically
correct, but also morally correct, by giving attribution

-- 
Ioannis Aslanidis

<deathwing00[at]gentoo.org> 0xB9B11F4E
éí¢‡^¾X¬¶È\x1ežÚ(¢¸&j)bž	b²

Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword amd64 -> x86_64

[Marius Mauch]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:40:23 +0100
Fabian Groffen <grobian@gentoo.org> 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." <wltjr@gentoo.org> 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

[gentoo-dev] Re: Keyword amd64 -> x86_64

[Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 428 bytes --]

Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org> writes:

> - 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 said all I wanted to say on that name.

Beside, does it really changes stuff for anybody beside Intel fanboys?

-- 
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Keyword amd64 -> x86_64

[Wernfried Haas]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 639 bytes --]

On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 07:40:43PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Beside, does it really changes stuff for anybody beside Intel fanboys?

I guess there may be some confusion for people installing their first
amd64 on a Intel box. However, i think this sort of confusion is
solved more appropiately by telling them amd64 is fine for their
hardware than renaming it inside Gentoo with all the things that need
changing and can easily be overlooked.

cheers,
	Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne (at) gentoo.org
Gentoo Forums - http://forums.gentoo.org
forum-mods (at) gentoo.org
#gentoo-forums (freenode)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Keyword amd64 -> x86_64

[Josh Saddler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 500 bytes --]

Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Beside, does it really changes stuff for anybody beside Intel fanboys?

In fairness, not just for Intel fanboys. Drop by the forums some time
and just try to count up all the threads asking "are the amd64
stages/media appropriate for my computer? i have a core 2...." and similar.

Technically, x86-64 is still correct, but as Marius mentioned earlier,
there would have to be a heckuva lot of documentation changes, which
wouldn't make the GDP happpy.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Keyword amd64 -> x86_64

[William L. Thomson Jr.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 525 bytes --]


On Thu, 2008-02-21 at 13:37 -0800, Josh Saddler wrote:
>
> Technically, x86-64 is still correct, but as Marius mentioned earlier,
> there would have to be a heckuva lot of documentation changes, which
> wouldn't make the GDP happpy.

Doubt the amd64 team, and infra would be happy either. Since likely have
to make changes there as well.

Lots of work for sure. Benefit little if any. No worries here, just
wanted to toss it out there. Sorry for repeating this.

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/amd64/Java

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Keyword amd64 -> x86_64

[Fabian Groffen]

On 21-02-2008 19:40:43 +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org> writes:
> 
> > - 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 said all I wanted to say on that name.
> 
> Beside, does it really changes stuff for anybody beside Intel fanboys?

I guess amd64 is just as much a marketing term as x64 then, and whether
or not fanboys, I don't care, but amd64-macos just doesn't make any
sense to me, and em64t is just as bad as (if not worse than) amd64.  I
could even live with i64, even though that might get confused with ia64.
Long story short, in the end it's just a keyword, so nothing life
threathening.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Keyword amd64 -> x86_64

[Bernd Steinhauser]

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

[Ben de Groot]

-----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]

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: Keyword amd64 -> x86_64

[Steve Long]

Fabian Groffen wrote:
> Ben de Groot wrote:
>> Bernd Steinhauser wrote:
>> | 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.
> 
I accept that it seems odd, but EM64T is a clone of amd64 in the same way
that amd32 is a clone of x86. If we're consistent across the board, it
leads to less confusion, once a user knows they're on amd64 (I'm thinking
of support questions more than anything.) Whatever you decide to call it
for macos/prefix, I'd vote against x86_64-fbsd and for amd64-fbsd, since
renaming amd64 is not going to happen afaict.


-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list