[Feature]: Rename x64 bianies as x86_64 to more align with community pattern

[davidjeddy]

What do you need?

Thank you very much for providing precompiled binaries. We have already started adding your tool to our compliance and SAST automation. Demo'ing it to our teams has generated very positive feedback.

During our implimentation we notice the x64 binary was a weird name; checking our other tools the x86 binary is typically x86_64. Would you be against renaming the artifact?

I would submit a PR but not familiar with the projects CI automation :(

How would it work?

No response

Additional context

No response

[oocx]

Hello @davidjeddy,

thank you for your feedback!

Don't worry about submitting a PR - what really helps is feedback and ideas :). I delegate the coding to CoPilot, I just need to create specifications. So if you have ideas, more details are better, as this helps me create the specs.

Out of curiosity - why is the name a problem? It's just the archive that is different per architecture, the binary is always just fplan2md.

The names are currently based on the .net runtime identifier that is used to build each artifact (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/whats-new/dotnet-10/sdk#use-the-any-runtimeidentifier-with-platform-specific-net-tools).

Regards
Mathias

[davidjeddy]

Good to hear, I am sure to come up with many more improvement ideas. :)

In the Linux world we use the output of uname -m for x86 systems is x86_64 or amd64; but not x64. Writing special case logic to handle the difference introduces additional context understanding for the (new) value.

Does .NET understand that aarch* is also arm*?