[x86-64] AMD Dev Center usage proposal

[Bart Trojanowski]

--V3eawNQxI9TAjvgi
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net> [030525 13:34]:
> I'm just a bit worried what happens if Intel happen to adopt x86-64. I
> guess they won't call it amd64...

I feel that AMD64 is more like IA32, where as x86-64 would be more
general and hence may be more useful for a name of the arch name.  And
there is what Michael is saying about the possible Yamhil (is that the
code-name) issue.

Personally I like how AMD64 sounds, and it _is_ what AMD wants everyone
to use when describing this architecture.

Neither architecture addresses the 'visioning problem'... ie what will
the next advancement of x86-64 or amd64 be?  amd64-1?

I guess either name is good, but both have issues.  :)

> I asked one of the dpkg-maintainers (Wichert Akkerman) on irc yesterday
> and he seemed to be unaware of such changes. I suggest you present your
> proposed changed to the debian-dpkg list, that's the only place both
> dpkg-maintainers really read and will notice.

It may be too early to start on this now.  I think, we should have it
done by the time we get to the end of the 'base packages' step, but it
may be a distraction before then.

That is to say: yes it is important to have a proper description of what
we want to do and why, but we should get the ball rolling first.

B.

--=20
				WebSig: http://www.jukie.net/~bart/sig/

--V3eawNQxI9TAjvgi
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+0QG2/zRZ1SKJaI8RAoQWAKCs7c4xfj4iPqa1aAgf1J9ITF+4SQCgkodj
ZaJ70TSguWf6eZBdBjGTKAc=
=h4XI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--V3eawNQxI9TAjvgi--