Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 09:38:14 -0700 From: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org>, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r266553 - head/release/scripts Message-ID: <537F7976.3060705@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20140523162020.GG72340@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> References: <201405221922.s4MJM4Y9025265@svn.freebsd.org> <537F6706.6070509@freebsd.org> <20140523153619.GF72340@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <537F6EBC.3080008@freebsd.org> <20140523162020.GG72340@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 05/23/14 09:20, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:52:28AM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: >> On 05/23/14 08:36, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:19:34AM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: >>>> Is there any chance of finally switching the pkg abi identifiers to just >>>> be uname -p? >>>> -Nathan >>> Keeping asking won't make it happen, I have explained a large number of time why it >>> happened, why it is not easy for compatibility and why uname -p is still not >>> representing the ABI we do support, and what flexibility we need that the >>> current string offers to us. >>> >>> if one is willing to do the work, please be my guess, just dig into the archives >>> and join the pkg development otherwise: no it won't happen before a while >>> because we have way too much work on the todo and this item is stored at the >>> very end of this todo. >>> >>> regards, >>> Bapt >> I'm happy to do the work, and have volunteered now many times. If uname >> -p does not describe the ABI fully, then uname -p needs changes on the >> relevant platforms. Which are they? What extra flexibility does the >> string give you if uname -p describes the ABI completely? >> -Nathan > just simple examples in armv6: > - eabi vs oabi OABI is almost entirely dead, and will be entirely dead soon. > - The different float abi (even if only one is supported for now others are > being worked on) armv6 and armv6hf > - little endian vs big endian armv6 and armv6eb (though I think armv6eb support in general has been removed from the tree, but armeb is still there) These all already exist. > the extras flexibilit is being able to say this binary do support freebsd i386 > and amd64 in one key, freebsd:9:x86:*, or or all arches freebsd:10:* > The second one already would work, wouldn't it? Just replacing x86:64 with amd64 won't change anything. The first has to be outweighed by being able to reliably figure out where to fetch from without a lookup table. We also added the kern.supported_archs sysctl last year to all branches to enable figuring out which architectures a given running kernel supports (e.g. amd64 and i386 on most amd64 systems). This was designed specifically to help pkg figure out what packages it can install. -Nathan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?537F7976.3060705>