dann frazier wrote: > On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 02:25:31PM +0400, Paul A. Anokhin wrote: > >> It seems like a half of this maillist traffic is generated by people >> mistakingly trying to use ia64 instead of x86-64 version. And I have >> to admit that compared to the rest of the internet this is pretty good >> error ratio :) >> >> Probably the ia64 port should be named something like "ipf" or >> "itanium" to avoid confusion. After all, ia64 is no longer the >> official name for the architecture AFAIK, and I think the change was >> caused by the same reason. >> > > Renaming a port because of something like this isn't really an option >
Just to play devil's advocate, why not? > - a better answer, imo, would be to modify the ia64 cds to display a > splash screen on x86 hardware that explains the issue. > I disagree -- bandwidth is not cheap for everyone, and it seems to me reducing the number of people who mistakenly download ia64 images is the right fix. I also don't like the idea of having fewer packages and a potentially tricky-to-get-right multiboot image on my CD for the silly people who do that. -- Brian Szymanski email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype: xbrianskix cell: +1 202 747 4019 jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] aim: xbrianskix msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ex cibus merda
