Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:39:17 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: obrien@freebsd.org, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/lang/gcc34 Makefile distinfo Message-ID: <p06020457bc5c1fc2995a@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <20040220153933.GA29018@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <200402192212.i1JMCUxx092480@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040219222006.GA19860@xor.obsecurity.org> <Pine.BSF.4.58.0402192335590.47964@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <20040220012254.GB4306@dragon.nuxi.com> <Pine.BSF.4.58.0402200945010.84681@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <20040220153933.GA29018@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 7:39 AM -0800 2/20/04, David O'Brien wrote: >On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 09:46:42AM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > >> You are obviously biased (given your day job). > >I am, but I've never demanded that FreeBSD's use of "i386" and >"ia32" be changed. ... W/o AMD going to market with this design >there would be no "ia32e" from Intel. Intel had no choice and >was totally forced by the market to do their "ia32e". We owe >honoring AMD by calling the platform "amd64". For what it's worth, I agree completely with David. There is no reason to go through the bother of renaming the amd64 port, until we find out that 'ia32e' is different from 'amd64' in some technical detail. And if that does happen, and I do think it *might* happen, then we should just create the ia32e port, and leave the amd64 port as it is. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06020457bc5c1fc2995a>