Discussion:
x86_64 and x86
(too old to reply)
Eric Pozharski
2019-07-04 09:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Upon doing my stuff here I've observed a thing that weirded me out. All
packages as distributed are arch-wise either 'x86_64', or 'noarch', or
'fw'. Except kernel-headers which is just 'x86'. That's clearly an
artifact. I see that's not breaking anything. But that's weird.

What's the story behind it?
--
Torvalds' goal for Linux is very simple: World Domination
Stallman's goal for GNU is even simpler: Freedom
Aragorn
2019-07-04 10:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Pozharski
Upon doing my stuff here I've observed a thing that weirded me out.
All packages as distributed are arch-wise either 'x86_64', or
'noarch', or 'fw'. Except kernel-headers which is just 'x86'.
That's clearly an artifact. I see that's not breaking anything. But
that's weird.
What's the story behind it?
They are just plain text files, so there's nothing specifically
"64-bit" or "32-bit" about them. Yet, they cannot be named "noarch",
because their content is specific to the x86 architecture — e.g. they're
not intended for compiling/linking stuff for, say, ARM or MIPS.
--
With respect,
= Aragorn =
Loading...