Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 16:10:06 GMT From: David Naylor <naylor.b.david@gmail.com> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/151747: request to enable emulators/wine on amd64 Message-ID: <201102061610.p16GA6LB069348@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/151747; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: David Naylor <naylor.b.david@gmail.com>
To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
Cc: bug-followup@freebsd.org,
kenorb@gmail.com
Subject: Re: ports/151747: request to enable emulators/wine on amd64
Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2011 18:08:48 +0200
--nextPart7013142.EJLr4MYl8T
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sunday 06 February 2011 16:31:14 Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011, David Naylor wrote:
> >> Shouldn't USE_LDCONFIG32 use WINELIBDIR instead of repeating the
> >> stuff?
> >=20
> > Agreed.
>=20
> Looking into the patch, I believe we can avoid the introduction of
> WINE_SLAVE_BUILD by making this
>=20
> .if !defined(USE_LDCONFIG32)
> USE_LDCONFIG=3D ${WINELIBDIR} ${WINELIBDIR}/wine
> .endif
>=20
> and will give it a try.
Yes, that is the way I originally did it but I felt WINE_SLAVE_BUILD was le=
ss=20
cryptic. Either way is fine for me. =20
> Also, do we really need the CONFLICTS? emulators/wine is
> ONLY_FOR_ARCHS=3Di386, whereas your port is for AMD64 only.
Actually, wine-fbsd64 is also ONLY_FOR_ARCHS=3Di386. Since FreeBSD does no=
t=20
support cross building ports this port has to be built in an i386 environme=
nt.=20
This port does run in an i386 environment. The only way I know of to deliv=
er=20
an amd64 port is to use binary packages. =20
The intention of this port is for those who want to build wine/i386 that wi=
ll=20
work with FreeBSD/amd64 (using the patches I have provided), and since it i=
s=20
fairly easy to build an i386 chroot this will greatly reduce the complexity=
=2E =20
> >> post-install-wine: is really brutal; I'd hope FreeBSD will gain
> >> proper combined 32-/64-bit support at one point.
> >=20
> > 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> Gerald
--nextPart7013142.EJLr4MYl8T
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD)
iEYEABECAAYFAk1Ox5cACgkQUaaFgP9pFrKI6QCfYkbemuKc/gqQqN/nB0vnJVu5
D0IAn2aJ58MiY3FFIvwbJql39gReK4vY
=k91L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart7013142.EJLr4MYl8T--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201102061610.p16GA6LB069348>