From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 1 05:12:02 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D55E61068611 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 05:11:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from heliocentric@gmail.com) Received: from mail-gy0-f182.google.com (mail-gy0-f182.google.com [209.85.160.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DE268FC18 for ; Tue, 1 Jun 2010 05:11:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gyh20 with SMTP id 20so4194835gyh.13 for ; Mon, 31 May 2010 22:11:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/vgHoRXRBuAG4KKzLmB3xKZxj0Rvu9DSTqijxqSaHlw=; b=QcB7ysFol2OV0GvwGkc2EbX7oRmIxDYQQeNgVkxB5BLpmnO32BqXliXEprBPs082xu tuevCLP+0inRIG0emqhsXUyEcv/8IKJiU9ii7gKGtVOfK5yIRzvR9+gTFImSJ8XhxHG1 Duoliy/0YbzVHjl/Ff4PuHP9hGFvP6gxChkBc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=R4zACfqdO3hU9DFRYzQeBXsIodN6ufiWNnblYyG7nF5Enc35UeNNCxKBp+4N86mxva VMTT2lIBpIiAXSvgT9z/7JDvPpUf2Vlrfx00OuyqUozimRLr9xfDjmwv6JqI2cQGjLpi BaXEnE3YLdYYT+ZWtLv/jxDBgjLujvrQzahMM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.187.19 with SMTP id k19mr5412388ybf.96.1275367764922; Mon, 31 May 2010 21:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Sender: heliocentric@gmail.com Received: by 10.151.50.14 with HTTP; Mon, 31 May 2010 21:49:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 00:49:24 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: bGCLBHMVlELcwLz1UeEhgqw5Neo Message-ID: From: Dylan Cochran To: Eitan Adler Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List Subject: Re: what would take to allow binary upgrade to amd64? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 05:12:02 -0000 On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Eitan Adler wrote: > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Rob Farmer wrote: >> On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Eitan Adler wrote: >>> I know that attempting to change from i386 to amd64 is is not possible >> >> The proper procedure for such an upgrade is as follows: > .... >> >> If the thought of reformatting your system is scary, because you don't >> have backups or aren't sure they are comprehensive or work, then solve >> that problem, rather than trying to invent workarounds to cover for >> bad system administration. It will serve you much better in the long >> run. > This isn't my question. I know how to currently perform the upgrade. > > My question is > a) is it possible in theory to allow binary upgrades to be done? > and b) if yes how much work would it take? In theory, yes, it is possible; in practice, in limited scope, it is practical to do so. I have done it, and have the ability to do so at will. As for widespread use, the COMPAT_FREEBSD32 option needs to be fixed first, because as it stands now a 64bit kernel with a 32bit userland is not complete, for example, on 8.0, a 32bit ifconfig cannot set an ip address on an interface, because of ioctl incompatibility. This prevents the intermediate step of running a 32bit userland with a 64bit kernel (though it can be sidestepped by segregating the architecture specific parts of the userland). Full 32bit support on 64bit kernels has other, more widespread benefits then an after install sidegrade. Work is already moving in this direction, as it's a natural progression for architecture support.