Author loewis
Recipients loewis, ronaldoussoren
Date 2008-10-08.06:55:32
SpamBayes Score 2.5616e-07
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <48EC5963.5060002@v.loewis.de>
In-reply-to <FEED5EBD-FD67-489B-923C-CDFE79F91814@mac.com>
Content
> It is not documented anywhere but in the code

These also appear in file names of bdist commands, right? So I think it
should be documented.

> We (Bob Ippolitto and I) had some discussion about the architecture  
> strings when
> we were working on support for universal binaries and rejected my  
> initial suggestion
> of using "i386,ppc" instead of "fat" because that would be unwieldy.

OK. I wonder how you will call fat 64-bit binaries (i.e. ppc64 and
amd64), but I can live with that semantics as long as it's documented
(I actually question that it is documented in the code. If somebody
would put "-arch Itanium" in her CFLAGS, which might be supported in
10.9, it would infer that the architecture is "fat").
History
Date User Action Args
2008-10-08 06:55:34loewissetrecipients: + loewis, ronaldoussoren
2008-10-08 06:55:33loewislinkissue4064 messages
2008-10-08 06:55:32loewiscreate