Tres writes:
Mark Hammond wrote:
This will result in both the final version of most bdist_* installations having the architecture in the filename. It also has the nice side effect of having the temp directories used by these commands include the architecture in their names, meaning its possible to build multiple Windows architectures from the same build tree, although that is not
At 04:00 PM 7/18/2007 +1000, Mark Hammond wrote: the primary
motivation. I presume the intention of this is to have it end up as either 'win32' or 'win64', yes?
Probably 'win32', 'amd64' or 'itanium' - I'm not worried about the specific strings, but there would need to be different ones for each of the 64bit architectures.
Why would you use processor type IDs to indicate Windows-specifc platforms? Lots of systems running on AMD64 boxen don't run windows (can't say "lots" and "Itanium" in the same sentence, I guess, but I know for a fact that OpenVMS is running on Itanium, at least).
Yes, I agree with that. I'm not too worried about what the specific strings are, and I agree they should include the OS *and* the architecture (eg, 'win32', 'win-amdx64' or 'win-itanium' might be suitable, or maybe win64-amd/win64-itanium). However, I'm just trying to take things one step at a time - if we can agree that having the same string for all architectures is bad, we can then move forward into a "bike-shed" discussion of what the new strings should be :) I'm yet to hear anyone explicitly agree with me that the current situation needs changing though. Cheers, Mark