From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 8 23:32:19 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC5C816A4CE; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 23:32:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (CPE0050040655c8-CM00111ae02aac.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [69.194.102.143]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B5E643D5F; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 23:32:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 299255387A; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:35:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:35:15 -0800 From: Kris Kennaway To: Benjamin Lutz Message-ID: <20041108233515.GA62254@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <200411071518.59679.benlutz@datacomm.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200411071518.59679.benlutz@datacomm.ch> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Linux/i386 compat on Freebsd/amd64 / ONLY_FOR_ARCHS X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 23:32:19 -0000 --4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 03:18:47PM +0100, Benjamin Lutz wrote: > Now, one thing I noticed is that pretty much all linux ports are marked= =20 > with ONLY_FOR_ARCHS=3Di386, when in fact they work just fine on=20 > FreeBSD/amd64 (with the linux/i386 compatibility environment, ie=20 > linux_base-8 installed). This is somewhat annoying,as it requires=20 > manually setting MACHINE_ARCH=3Di386 and sometimes ARCH=3Di386 with every= =20 > make. >=20 > Now... I assume that eventually FreeBSD will also get Linux/*64 support= =20 > sooner or later, and that there'll be linux ports that use only one of=20 > the two linux compat environments. >=20 > So what I'm trying to say is that I'm not sure that setting ONLY_FOR_ARCH= S=20 > for binary linux ports makes a lot of sense... could it not be assumed=20 > that if the linux/i386 compatibility environment is installed on a=20 > machine, linux/i386 apps will work even if this is not an i386 machine?= =20 > Same thing when FreeBSD gets linux/*64 support. linux support exists for other architectures too (only alpha presently, but others may follow in future). So just removing the ONLY_FOR_ARCHS is not good enough since these ports will not run on all architectures that have a working linux_base; amd64 is a special case here since it's largely backwards compatible with i386. What should probably be done is to add amd64 to ONLY_FOR_ARCHS when those ports are tested and confirmed to work on amd64. Kris --4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFBkAKzWry0BWjoQKURAvhfAKDVVqsvYVzdRGSCpvX9lw6pXank/wCgh+Yk aM3CaAKwXscIWAF5XIbbHSQ= =AucD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY--