Bug 135815 - Shouldn't "AMD64" be "x86_64"?
Shouldn't "AMD64" be "x86_64"?
Product: Red Hat Network
Classification: Red Hat
Component: RHN/Web Site (Show other bugs)
RHN Devel
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Mike Orazi
Red Hat Satellite QA List
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2004-10-15 04:21 EDT by Jay Turner
Modified: 2015-01-07 19:08 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-03-05 15:11:46 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Jay Turner 2004-10-15 04:21:58 EDT
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"


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:
Actual results:

Expected results:

Additional info:
Comment 1 Jay Turner 2007-01-03 09:31:27 EST
All of these complaints are still valid with the website today.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.