Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 08:36:13 +0100 From: Andreas Klemm <andreas@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] what to name linux 32-bit compat Message-ID: <20050118073612.GA10427@titan.klemm.apsfilter.org> In-Reply-To: <200501172146.17965.jhb@FreeBSD.org> References: <20050117203818.GA29131@dragon.nuxi.com> <200501172146.17965.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 /// -- Andreas Klemm - Powered by FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT Need a magic printfilter today ? -> http://www.apsfilter.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050118073612.GA10427>