Khalid Aziz wrote: > On Fri, 2008-09-05 at 09:45 -0600, 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 >> - a better answer, imo, would be to modify the ia64 cds to display a >> splash screen on x86 hardware that explains the issue. >> >> -- >> dann frazier >> >> >> > > How would ia64 CD display anything on x86 if it can not boot even??? >
presumably a multi-arch boot image: http://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/4.0_r4a/multi-arch/iso-cd/ -- Brian Szymanski email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] skype: xbrianskix cell: +1 202 747 4019 jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] aim: xbrianskix msn: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ex cibus merda
