Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 21:24:44 -0400 From: Nikolai Lifanov <lifanov@mail.lifanov.com> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, owner-svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r266553 - head/release/scripts Message-ID: <7e3c8f5196a6328a346945e0e90d3ec3@mail.lifanov.com> In-Reply-To: <8740c21d1e7467ea0e0355c5d05729c9@shatow.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> <537F7976.3060705@freebsd.org> <20140523164521.GH72340@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <537F8153.7080808@freebsd.org> <20140523172636.GK72340@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <537F9AF4.1070502@freebsd.org> <20140523192701.GL72340@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <537FBB4E.2010409@freebsd.org> <8740c21d1e7467ea0e0355c5d05729c9@shatow.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2014-05-23 17:34, Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 2014-05-23 16:19, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: >> On 05/23/14 12:27, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:01:08PM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: >>>> On 05/23/14 10:26, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>>>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:11:47AM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: >>>>>> On 05/23/14 09:45, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> We don't provide packages for ARM. Also, no platforms have >>>>>> defaulted to >>>>>> OABI for a very long time. Not making a distinction was a >>>>>> deliberate >>>>>> decision of the ARM group, since it was meant to be a clean >>>>>> switchover. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - 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? >>>>>> That would be armv6hfeb, I assume, if FreeBSD actually supported >>>>>> big-endian ARMv6 at all, which it doesn't. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 same. There is mips64el, mipsel, mips, mips64, etc. that go >>>>>> through >>>>>> all possible combinations. This is true for all platforms and has >>>>>> been >>>>>> for ages. There was a brief period (2007-2010, I think) where some >>>>>> Tier-3 embedded platforms didn't have enough options, but that era >>>>>> was >>>>>> obscure and is long past. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> Why does it mean that? That doesn't make sense. A couple of >>>>>> symlinks on >>>>>> the FTP server ensure compatibility. For the sysctl, it has been >>>>>> merged >>>>>> all the back to 7. >>>>> So We can switch after 8.4 death which is a good news (except if >>>>> you say that it >>>>> is in 8.4) >>>> It means we can do it now. Very few people install i386 packages on >>>> amd64 anyway. It means people with very old releases on old branches >>>> might face a warning in an unusual situation. Not a big deal. Since >>>> we >>>> only provide i386 and amd64 packages anyway, this is also a trivial >>>> special case if you really want that. >>>> >>>>>>> And it defeats cross installation (which is the reason why the >>>>>>> ABI supported is >>>>>>> read from a binary and not from kernel) >>>>>> No. That's the point of the sysctl. >>>>> I'm speaking of installing packages in a arm chroot on a amd64 host >>>>> I will need >>>>> to know what arch could be supported by the "content" of the >>>>> chroot. >>>> uname -p in the chroot (I guess this is with qemu) should return the >>>> right answer, just as it does with an i386 chroot. If it doesn't, >>>> something is broken in the qemu user mode support. >>> nope that is not with qemu it is basically cross buildworld, install >>> in a >>> destdir, install packages in that destdir which is a very common >>> usage that a >>> lot do expect to work >>> >> >> Knowing a priori which architectures are "supported" by a chroot based >> on ELF type of /bin/sh doesn't even work. How do you know what kernel >> will be running in there and how it will be configured? You don't. >> IA64 can -- sometimes -- run i386 binaries, for example. amd64 may or >> may not be able to run i386, depending on kernel options. >> > > You're assuming that you would only use a chroot to RUN things. This is > also useful for building images. Install a world into a chroot, run > pkg -c install whatever and it picks the right ABI. Just an example. > >> In any case, I wouldn't really characterize this situation as "common" >> in any sense -- and I don't even see why it applies to this >> discussion. Whatever logic calculates your own private version of >> architecture strings can calculate the correct ones. Allowing it to >> ignore the architecture optionally, just like you how you already have >> to add flags to install in a chroot, would also work. Lots of things >> like that. This issue is basically wholly unrelated to whether you use >> normal architecture strings or not. >> >> I'm perfectly happy to write 100% of the code to enable pkg to use the >> same architecture strings that the rest of the operating system uses. >> Having private ones is just a recipe for confusion. From this >> discussion, there don't seem to be any actually existing reasons why >> MACHINE_ARCH doesn't work for this. > > pkg is *not* FreeBSD-specific. Is MACHINE_ARCH portable? > I don't think it matters whether MACHINE_ARCH is portable. FreeBSD amd64 binaries are not going to run on Linux x86_64, for example. Setting pkg ABI to something like freebsd:arm:armv6hf or freebsd:amd64:amd64 is specific enough, and could allow installation if the last triplet is in kern.supported_archs. Then you can have linux:fruit:banana packages that will correctly not install on freebsd:amd64:amd64. The current mapping is not intuitive. - Nikolai Lifanov
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7e3c8f5196a6328a346945e0e90d3ec3>