From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JVoEf-00060Z-O7 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:28:13 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 85CDDE05A9; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 13:28:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EFD3E05A9 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 13:28:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D905066502 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 13:28:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -0.024 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.024 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.508, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dlP80mb3W+OZ for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 13:28:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1007B667F4 for ; Sun, 2 Mar 2008 13:28:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JVoEP-0000dH-8g for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:27:57 +0000 Received: from 82.153.66.25 ([82.153.66.25]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:27:57 +0000 Received: from slong by 82.153.66.25 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:27:57 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Keyword amd64 -> x86_64 Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:35:52 +0000 Message-ID: References: <1203530351.26229.17.camel@wlt.obsidian-studios.com> <20080220192326.1d332d92.genone@gentoo.org> <20080220184023.GA1254@gentoo.org> <47C73FD3.5060908@bernd-steinhauser.de> <47C7B062.4050706@gentoo.org> <20080229075644.GI16120@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.153.66.25 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.5 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 24dde9df-3d37-4516-adb9-1aed365c45d7 X-Archives-Hash: 40f5d68a31abf92b65b5859538767961 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