Mark Hammond wrote:
> A good value for 'architecture' isn't clear. Either 'AMD' or 'Itanium'
> appeals at first glance, but I'm a little concerned that (say) a "casual"
> user with a new Intel Core Duo processor will not know they should use
> something labelled as "AMD" (eg, "I explicitly asked for an Intel chip, not
> an AMD one"). An alternative could be be 'x64' or 'i64', but I'm not sure
> that casual user would be any better off, and with only a single letter
> distinguishing them, there is scope for confusion. On my final (mutant)
> hand, it seems that Itanium will be a historical footnote and demand for
> Itanium 64bit packages will be tiny (I've had a reasonable number of
> requests for x64 versions of pywin32, but zero for i64), so I doubt many
> packages will bother with Itanium.
>
> So, I'm leaning towards 'win64-x64' and 'win64-i64', with the expectation
> that the 'i64' variant will be rarely seen in the wild. Alternatively,
> 'win-x64' and 'win-i64' appear reasonable - it doesn't seem necessary that
> '64' appear twice in the name.
>
I could be mistaken, but I believe the standard abbreviations for these
architectures are 'x86_64' (intel/amd chipset) and 'ia64' (itanium) --
see the first two paragraphs of the wikipedia article on Itanium for an
example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium
So how about something like:
win-x86_64
win-ia64
-- Dave
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
