Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:42:36 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ABI/architecture identification for packages Message-ID: <20120320144236.GK2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <E05DC188-FDB3-4FA3-8931-4E6B335C07C9@cran.org.uk> References: <20120319213508.GA1692@azathoth.lan> <20120320091935.GF1692@azathoth.lan> <20120320102008.GH2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <E05DC188-FDB3-4FA3-8931-4E6B335C07C9@cran.org.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--iSeZnk6FyAS3EJ1y
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 02:26:42PM +0000, Bruce Cran wrote:
>=20
> On 20 Mar 2012, at 10:20, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
>=20
> > i386-32 and amd64-64 is weird and confusing.
> >=20
> > IMO, you should go either with x86-{32,64} names, or with i386/amd64,
> > not with a mix.
>=20
> Would we ever want to support something like x32 from Linux (which might =
be amd64-32)?
> http://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/2011/ocw/sessions/531
>=20
Yes, we do want to support this.
In which form, and when, I have no good answer.
We can propose some name for the architecture when the work starts.
--iSeZnk6FyAS3EJ1y
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAk9ol1wACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4hvrQCfS+tgvukMqRQOTsQvJZyDETjf
140AoO82qV2lqnNHc2jbZerCdmk2FYvN
=rnuy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--iSeZnk6FyAS3EJ1y--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120320144236.GK2358>