On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Scott James Remnant wrote: > "May the dpkg and/or apt maintainers select the name of an > architecture?"
I'd say no to this. Historically the apt/dpkg folk have never done that, primarily because they have no interest in the architecture name, it is just a value in a table. > "What name for the x86-64/AMD64 architecture should be used?" Mmm, tricky. I personally like the x86?64 variety. I can't see any reason to use amd64, especially since userland binaries built for amd64 will work on ia32e. I think the choice of amd64 made some sense before the Intel announcement, but I think it sill would have been better to align with the kernel/gcc. Now it makes very little sense and we should ditch it while we still can. It would be terribly nice to be able to use the LSB mandated x86_64 as the arch name - simply because it is LSB. I'm not sure of the implications of extra _'s in filenames though. AFAIK nothing should actually be parsing the filenames like this so it might be ok. Jason
