From owner-freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org  Thu Jul  2 13:06:03 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAFE3991E8A
 for <freebsd-emulation@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Thu,  2 Jul 2015 13:06:03 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from feld@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com
 [66.111.4.29])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83C662615
 for <freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org>; Thu,  2 Jul 2015 13:06:03 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from feld@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46])
 by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3767320C38
 for <freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org>; Thu,  2 Jul 2015 09:06:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from web3 ([10.202.2.213])
 by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 02 Jul 2015 09:06:02 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=
 messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type
 :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references
 :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=hDj7/eH+wg5PzRh
 5IrcvGioJmEg=; b=eURH9byUAbRNXyQIcuhpDqH5uXZIz4HZUuxAPz2YyZ7wtWT
 SNQCtJT84CDFVKwVvpGjI3iAjGzeLxd/HSVJ8oB1EaETy2r8+SxiKbla0WEdRT9M
 /rEsWlLRWG7E7IUqp3ku9gDrumDKQ8znogoRH5Ij+bs/QnFtty2m/YAoa7CY=
Received: by web3.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 99)
 id 0F7601004A1; Thu,  2 Jul 2015 09:06:02 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <1435842362.1909278.313547865.569678E5@webmail.messagingengine.com>
X-Sasl-Enc: xpahfRwh7W04ACTlJpR/nirxl6w8f66h+9T1O5O5s0Sf 1435842362
From: Mark Felder <feld@FreeBSD.org>
To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface - ajax-eecef38c
Subject: Re: [CFH] Allan's 64bits CentOS ports
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 08:06:02 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20150701152052.Horde.XdxXFlk6nCjUyNqwVIVyVQ9@webmail.leidinger.net>
References: <20150701152052.Horde.XdxXFlk6nCjUyNqwVIVyVQ9@webmail.leidinger.net>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: Development of Emulators of other operating systems
 <freebsd-emulation.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-emulation>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-emulation-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-emulation/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-emulation-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-emulation>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-emulation-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 13:06:03 -0000



On Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 08:20, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>
>   - Can I install 64bit and 32bit in parallel with this approach (I  
> have to admit, it depends if the 64bit linuxulator is going to a  
> different or the same /compat/linux directory but I haven't checked  
> that, and it depends on how centos is build in this regard, so no idea  
> if this makes sense)?

I think CentOS & friends still support installing 32bit and 64bit RPMs
side by side. If I'm correct about that we would probably want to only
have one unified /compat/linux directory. That's really just one of a
few reasons I can think of for keeping it unified...