Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 18:45:21 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> To: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@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: <20140523164521.GH72340@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <537F7976.3060705@freebsd.org> References: <201405221922.s4MJM4Y9025265@svn.freebsd.org> <537F6706.6070509@freebsd.org> <20140523153619.GF72340@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <537F6EBC.3080008@freebsd.org> <20140523162020.GG72340@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <537F7976.3060705@freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 09:38:14AM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > 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. Maybe but still for now it is there and pkg has to work now > > > - 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) what about combinaison? armv6 + eb + hf? > > 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:* > > arm was en example what about mips? > > 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. I know, it means that we can switch only when freebsd 8 and 9 are EOL which means in a couple of years And it defeats cross installation (which is the reason why the ABI supported is read from a binary and not from kernel) and last thing is the current build packages should just work meaning that we would need to have a kind of mapping table [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlN/eyEACgkQ8kTtMUmk6Ez5RQCguLMPi4avjhTXGN2uyGfdzO43 OU0AnRWITWirZWTBSWImGXlZeHu3klxi =+FLK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140523164521.GH72340>