Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 12:56:30 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org>, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r266553 - head/release/scripts Message-ID: <D6242A79-F4F4-406F-8A45-49821417D72F@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20140524165940.3c687553@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.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> <C5A59513-AF58-4749-BCD7-F54BB6F56E90@gmail.com> <20140524165940.3c687553@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On May 24, 2014, at 8:59 AM, Tijl Coosemans <tijl@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Fri, 23 May 2014 17:29:48 -0600 Warner Losh wrote: >> On May 23, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org> 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 >>> - The different float abi (even if only one is supported for now others are >>> being worked on) >>> - little endian vs big endian >> >> All of those are encoded in the MACHINE_ARCH + freebsd version, no exceptions >> on supported architectures that are tier 2 or higher. This seems like a weak reason. >> >>> 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:* >> >> Will there be a program to convert this new, special invention to the standard >> that we’ve used for the past 20 years? If you need the flexibility, which I’m not >> entirely sure I’ve seen a good use case for. When would you have a x86 binary >> package? Wouldn’t it be either i386 or amd64? > > ABI isn't just about the instruction set. It's also about the sizes of C > types (like pointers). If I remember correctly, the pkg scheme was chosen > to allow for ABIs like x32 which use the 64 bit instruction set with 32 > bit pointers. MACHINE_ARCH would also be amd64 in this case. ABIs like x32 would not have a MACHINE_ARCH of “amd64” but would have a MACHINE_ARCH of “x32”. This is exactly what we do with mips today. So this ins’t an argument for not using MACHINE_ARCH directly, rather than having an arbitrary mapping (which is the problem with the proposed scheme). MACHINE_ARCH, as it stands in FreeBSD, uniquely defines the ABI (modulo occasional bugs that are fixed). > The advantage of the pkg scheme is that it has a formal structure. That's > what makes it flexible, extensible, machine parsable, etc. I'd rather see > the rest of FreeBSD adopt this scheme than that pkg would have to adopt > the informal names. The use of x86 instead of i386/amd64 is part of the > idea to merge more of sys/i386 and sys/amd64 into sys/x86 and eventually > define MACHINE as "x86”. MACHINE and MACHINE_ARCH are different. Please don’t confuse them. > Patterns like freebsd:9:* will probably become more prevalent when support > for subpackages is added. Some of the subpackages (like documentation) will > be ABI independent. True, but not relevant to the machine name you use. Warner [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTgOteAAoJEGwc0Sh9sBEAIOoQANtqG5DOzMtGJDKuPF9OZc+8 xT5Z9Ahc9DxZeSdDxPj1BRdO9ZlYuU2vBXSS25sqjYrDPv5bJuDzLv8ECgETVzqn /9z5K1Dxc+Zl5CAhOuOGDk4003c5XDwDLEJqvHjF1QrmKecPsNXE5pzb9Sr2gHsB m/X5kmzHEUz9gral3Z1Y+APaAySvJVNHVWViQHqSLlNeYtvpMzOCkTyIMDL7rlNQ Mvkdh0w88ZFba+UmUSSrFu/NHba9BBa4A1+uw08lqWfn7wmW7b4G3rk4VhZeABWO zJds91bW8kN141Nh5GWeoI9lytHrpoaWVjF1c5FDmjiC5099PAcyGn77ZOM6UlS+ TEVO5HAvhhiUUShYX+Rtx9S3EUuNsCBJG6/WeC4NnCcO0gMpjcQinnJWaWusGtw7 h+OD57tId7N3tA1QjpY8Xk9jWMH/QuHzsH7/XPkkFcfBBHAOzcEbaStf+npWZa3b 7DYeUlTOJvy023AHVvsE3J/YIeAlghN9IVbqVATkD2JLFT0VRTREx287ohrmEvJe ONNbviQ80cCAUsLbRZ3hlRrXIvnKE/F/2OGDUOm2QYMVIs7epMeMsS4GlMP2CgLq CQkz6aSXB/+XV5CN2Ro4eakysCZGaFitmUrA2i6mFBas+v6cs1COhto3/4fO8nJ7 lKK6lROSdemoTkcEUipY =0Csk -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D6242A79-F4F4-406F-8A45-49821417D72F>