On Fri, 25 Apr 2003, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 06:27:34PM -0400, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> > A bug on the lack of a debian-x86-64 mailing list has been opened (162668).
> > All that can be done has been done -- it's out of our hands now :)
It's the same for the internal projec
* Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030424 19:26]:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 06:27:34PM -0400, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> > A bug on the lack of a debian-x86-64 mailing list has been opened (162668).
> >
> > All that can be done has been done -- it's out of our hands now :)
> >
> > The pressure
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 06:27:34PM -0400, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> A bug on the lack of a debian-x86-64 mailing list has been opened (162668).
> All that can be done has been done -- it's out of our hands now :)
>
> The pressure, as you put it, could be increased by modifying the bug's
> severi
* Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030424 17:18]:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
>
> > I meant "in the meantime". I think that the list in lists.d.o must be
> > created, but as this will take some time and seems that there are some
> > people interested in this, I th
* Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030424 16:36]:
> ...But IA64 is the name for the platform, as opposed to a specific
> implementation. We also refer to the Pentiums, Athlons and their smaller
> cousins as x86 or i386 chips[1]. The right naming should follow the
> architecture's name, not a specif
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> I meant "in the meantime". I think that the list in lists.d.o must be
> created, but as this will take some time and seems that there are some
> people interested in this, I think that it's better this way.
I perfectly understand your int
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 24 April 2003 20:00, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> Good point... it is probably best to follow the decisions made at the
> kernel/gcc layer. And since both of these call the platform x86-64,
> that is what will stick.
No, they don't both use
> > I think they're right this time. Most of the press releases that have gone
> > out mention AMD64 instead of x86-64, and the marketing info at amd.com all
> > mentions AMD64 as well.
>
> Most of the press releases I've read also mention 'Itanium' and not
> 'ia64'.
...But IA64 is the name for
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 08:01:52PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
>
> > I thought this was a good idea. And since there was no such list yet I
> > requested the creation of 'debian-x86-64'. It will take 72 hours to
> > setup, I will reply to this thread
* Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030424 14:17]:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
>
> > I thought this was a good idea. And since there was no such list yet I
> > requested the creation of 'debian-x86-64'. It will take 72 hours to
> > setup, I will reply to this thread when it's
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 01:43:54PM -0400, Rich Payne wrote:
> > The Inquirer is not always right, so I am not sure if I should take that
> > as truth or just rumors.
>
> I think they're right this time. Most of the press releases that have gone
> out mention AMD64 instead of x86-64, and the market
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030424 13:55]:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
>
> > * Rich Payne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030424 13:43]:
> > > > On a side note, it would seem that the 'x86-64' branding may be dropped
> > > > in favor of 'AMD64'.
> > > >
> > > > http://
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> * Rich Payne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030424 13:43]:
> > > On a side note, it would seem that the 'x86-64' branding may be dropped
> > > in favor of 'AMD64'.
> > >
> > > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9133
> > > (7th paragraph)
> > >
> > > The In
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thursday 24 April 2003 19:05, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> On a side note, it would seem that the 'x86-64' branding may be dropped
> in favor of 'AMD64'.
True, at least SuSE and MicroSoft are only talking about AMD64 on their
product pages. OTOH, the
* Rich Payne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030424 13:43]:
> > On a side note, it would seem that the 'x86-64' branding may be dropped
> > in favor of 'AMD64'.
> >
> > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9133
> > (7th paragraph)
> >
> > The Inquirer is not always right, so I am not sure if I should t
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> I thought this was a good idea. And since there was no such list yet I
> requested the creation of 'debian-x86-64'. It will take 72 hours to
> setup, I will reply to this thread when it's ready.
While it is good that your problem of creating a list i
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Bart Trojanowski wrote:
> * Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030424 03:56]:
> > Though I think that a debian-x86-64 list is worth you can open a
> > project in alioth in the interim. You could use it also to have a CVS
> > repo for patches or packages you need t
* Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030424 03:56]:
> Though I think that a debian-x86-64 list is worth you can open a
> project in alioth in the interim. You could use it also to have a CVS
> repo for patches or packages you need to build.
I thought this was a good idea. And since th
El día 23 abr 2003, Robert Millan escribía:
>
> CCing debian-devel..
>
> hi!
>
> as noticed in DWN [1] and debian-devel [2], Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> has actualy started work [3] on the x86-64 port by using Bochs' x86-64
> emulation.
>
> it's likely that debian-x86-64 developement di
Robert Millan wrote:
> it's likely that debian-x86-64 developement discussions start to come up
> soon, so it'd be interesting if this list (#162668, New Mailinglist
> debian-x86-64) could be created soon (so that debian-devel is not crappled
> with x86-64 stuff).
I second this (as I search for an
20 matches
Mail list logo
