Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 07:22:30 -0500 From: Sean <rsh.lists@comcast.net> To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ia32 ports... Message-ID: <42245E86.5080105@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <20050301023829.GA28427@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <16931.17425.441677.617748@canoe.dclg.ca> <20050228195102.GB59327@dragon.nuxi.com> <4223CA11.6040008@comcast.net> <20050301023829.GA28427@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Steve Kargl wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 08:49:05PM -0500, Sean wrote: > >>I thought I have seen posts stating that people are using 32 version of >>programs on 64 bit amd? > > > It's a very simple concept. If you have 64-bit FreeBSD dynamic > linked binaries, you need the 64-bit FreeBSD shared libraries to > run them. If you have 32-bit FreeBSD dynamic linked binaries, > then you need the 32-bit FreeBSD shared libraries to run them. > If you have the 32-bit linux dynamic binaries, then you need to > have the 32-bit linux shared libraries. I have 314 libraries and > symlinks in /usr/lib32. > > >>So I guess some people have done this with the two copies you mentioned? > > > David was talking about *building* the 32-bit software on a 64-bit > machine. This isn't supported. What you can do is take a 32-bit > binary, built on a 32-bit machine, and run it on your 64-bit amd64 > system. "make buildworld" is setup to build the needed 32-bit > libraries and loader on a 64-bit system/ > > >>Then why if these 32 bit programs can't easily be built, if at all, do >>we add such things as with_lib32=yes to make.conf and options like >>LINPROCFS, COMPAT_LINUX32 ,COMPAT_IA32 , COMPAT_FREEBSD4 ,COMPAT_43 to >>the kernel config? >>I thought with these added in 32 bit program support was available? > > > Yes. > But all this means the 32 bit versions can't be built on a 64 bit version?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42245E86.5080105>