From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 6 14:40:11 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DBBA106564A for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 14:40:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427888FC17 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 14:40:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p16EeAGV073896 for ; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 14:40:10 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p16EeAOa073895; Sun, 6 Feb 2011 14:40:10 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 14:40:10 GMT Message-Id: <201102061440.p16EeAOa073895@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Gerald Pfeifer Cc: Subject: Re: ports/151747: request to enable emulators/wine on amd64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Gerald Pfeifer List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 14:40:11 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/151747; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Gerald Pfeifer To: David Naylor Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org, kenorb@gmail.com Subject: Re: ports/151747: request to enable emulators/wine on amd64 Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 15:31:14 +0100 (CET) On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, David Naylor wrote: >> Shouldn't USE_LDCONFIG32 use WINELIBDIR instead of repeating the >> stuff? > Agreed. Looking into the patch, I believe we can avoid the introduction of WINE_SLAVE_BUILD by making this .if !defined(USE_LDCONFIG32) USE_LDCONFIG= ${WINELIBDIR} ${WINELIBDIR}/wine .endif and will give it a try. Also, do we really need the CONFLICTS? emulators/wine is ONLY_FOR_ARCHS=i386, whereas your port is for AMD64 only. >> post-install-wine: is really brutal; I'd hope FreeBSD will gain >> proper combined 32-/64-bit support at one point. > Agreed but I do not think there is sufficient demand to warrant the > effort. I suspect an approach similar to this one will suffice for > the few ports that are required to run under amd64. As time goes by, 32-bit support in a 64-bit OS becomes less important. It has been hugely important for customer in $DAYJOB, and I would not underestimate the amount of 32-bit legacy applications out there. Gerald