Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 14:59:20 +0100 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ABI/architecture identification for packages Message-ID: <20120321135919.GG9629@azathoth.lan> In-Reply-To: <20120321143403.Horde.VhlEOJjmRSRPadjLnx7Eh8A@webmail.leidinger.net> References: <20120319213508.GA1692@azathoth.lan> <20120320091935.GF1692@azathoth.lan> <20120320102008.GH2358@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <E05DC188-FDB3-4FA3-8931-4E6B335C07C9@cran.org.uk> <20120321143403.Horde.VhlEOJjmRSRPadjLnx7Eh8A@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--WkfBGePaEyrk4zXB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 02:34:03PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Quoting Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk> (from Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:26:42 +0=
000):
>=20
> > On 20 Mar 2012, at 10:20, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> >
> >> i386-32 and amd64-64 is weird and confusing.
> >>
> >> IMO, you should go either with x86-{32,64} names, or with i386/amd64,
> >> not with a mix.
> >
> > Would we ever want to support something like x32 from Linux (which =20
> > might be amd64-32)?
> > http://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/2011/ocw/sessions/531
>=20
> Not related to x32, but related to the Linux keyword (yes, I'm in the =20
> wrong branch of this thread, but I don't have the root anymore):
>=20
> Can you please explain how the linuxulator ports (linux_base-*) fit into =
this?
>=20
> linux_base-f10 contains 32bit linux binaries, which run in the =20
> linuxulator on i386 and amd64. If someone steps up and finishes the =20
> 64bit linux emulation on amd64, we would be able to use a =20
> linux_base(32) and a linux_base64 (or however we want to name them =20
> then) on amd64 (both at the same time). The content of the packages =20
> generated on i386 can be used on amd64 (both are generated from the =20
> same linux binary RPMs and the few FreeBSD modifications are rm's, =20
> symlinks and config changes).
>=20
> Can you please explain and/or give examples which kind of metadata =20
> those ports would get?
for packages currently their will be two possible chain for the abi:
the abi defined here or any
any will be for scripts, data, etc.
I was thinking about giving a multi arch possibilities for packages for exa=
mple:
arch: ["freebsd:9:x86:32", "freebsd:9:x86:64"]
when a package can be installed in both i386 and amd64
and maybe in the Makefile:
PKGARCH=3D i386 amd64
or
PKGARCH=3D x86:32 x86:64
not decided yet
for scripts:
PKGARCH=3D any
But I haven't decided yet :)
regards,
Bapt
--WkfBGePaEyrk4zXB
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAk9p3rcACgkQ8kTtMUmk6ExylwCfdovpW9Xe/35/Cb2JKCGmVW99
6ywAn3nX0A5MtMmHhYaVJLuYhRecuIGL
=DNgh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--WkfBGePaEyrk4zXB--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120321135919.GG9629>