Bug 135815

Summary:	Shouldn't "AMD64" be "x86_64"?
Product:	[Retired] Red Hat Network	Reporter:	Jay Turner <jturner>
Component:	RHN/Web Site	Assignee:	Mike Orazi <morazi>
Status:	CLOSED NOTABUG	QA Contact:	Red Hat Satellite QA List <satqe-list>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	RHN Devel	CC:	rhn-bugs, srevivo
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2008-03-05 20:11:46 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Jay Turner 2004-10-15 08:21:58 UTC

Description of problem:
I'm not really sure what the proper ruling is there, but I thought we
were dropping references to "AMD64", chosing "X86_64" instead, as
that's the more general term which describes both "AMD64" and "EM64T"
 At a minimum, should probably mimic the behavior that we currently
have on the live site, where packages/systems are described as
"AMD64/Intel EM64T"

Examples:

errata/RHSA-2004-467.html lists "x86_64"
network/errata/details/index.pxt?eid=2400 lists "AMD64/EM64T"
network/errata/details/package_list.pxt?eid=2400 lists "AMD64/EM64T"
network/software/packages/details.pxt?pid=266702 lists the package
   with "x86_64.rpm", but Arch is shown as "AMD64" and Available
   Archs shows "AMD64"

**** Related note!  Isn't the plural of "arch" "arches"? ****

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
  
Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:

Comment 1 Jay Turner 2007-01-03 14:31:27 UTC

All of these complaints are still valid with the website today.