Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:12:54 -0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jo=E3o_Carlos_Mendes_Lu=EDs?= <jonny@jonny.eng.br> To: Astrodog <astrodog@gmail.com> Cc: Andreas Klemm <andreas@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] what to name linux 32-bit compat Message-ID: <41ED6DC6.1000604@jonny.eng.br> In-Reply-To: <2fd864e050118063747f5caa3@mail.gmail.com> References: <20050117203818.GA29131@dragon.nuxi.com> <200501172146.17965.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <20050118073612.GA10427@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org> <2fd864e050118063747f5caa3@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Astrodog wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:36:13 +0100, Andreas Klemm <andreas@freebsd.org> wrote: > >>On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 09:46:17PM -0500, John Baldwin wrote: >> >>>Personally, I think /compat/linux32 and /compat/linux (for linux64) would be >>>the best way to go. The idea being that /compat/linux runs native binaries >>>on any given arch, and if there's more than one arch supported, the >>>non-native ones get the funky names. >> >>Am not 100% sure but it might be a win to re-think this for port >>builders/designers. >> >>It might be beneficial not to use such "implicit" rules for naming >>like your suggestion for taking /compat/linux as native arch. >> >>I would perhaps name /compat/linux32 and /compat/linux64 explicitely, >>which might be a win and is IMHO not too expensive. >> >>Uname should IMHO get a new switch to print out default architecture >>of being 32 or 64 bit. >> >>So together with uname and the above naming scheme you have all you need >>and is compareable to what we already have (concerning uname) for >>cpu architecture. >> >>Do perhaps other BSD teams have added an mechanism like that or >>do they get 32/4 bit out of /proc ? >> >>Best regards >> >> Andreas /// > > > Not sure if it got lost, so I'm gonna summarize what I said earlier, > Why not have /compat/linux32, and /compat/linux64 (For things that > require one or the other), then just have /compat/linux linked to the > native setup for the machine? That gives the ease of /compat/linux for > the native stuff, without causing the problems Andreas pointed out. Thats exactly what I was going to write now. Symlink is the solution! > Also allows people with "clean" 64-bit friendly code to just use > /compat/linux on AMD64 or i386, and have things work in whatever way > is native to the machine. > > This could also be extended to other archs, if that ever becomes an > issue. (linuxppc, linuxsparc64, whatever), with linux still pointing > to native. -- João Carlos Mendes Luís
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41ED6DC6.1000604>