From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 17 20:48:01 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDAA416A4CE for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:48:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from peedub.jennejohn.org (J9ca2.j.pppool.de [85.74.156.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 229F543D1F for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:48:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from garyj@jennejohn.org) Received: from jennejohn.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by peedub.jennejohn.org (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j0HKlxS7022766 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:47:59 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from garyj@jennejohn.org) Message-Id: <200501172047.j0HKlxS7022766@peedub.jennejohn.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.0 06/18/2004 with nmh-1.0.4 To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: Message from "David O'Brien" <20050117203818.GA29131@dragon.nuxi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:47:59 +0100 From: Gary Jennejohn Subject: Re: [RFC] what to name linux 32-bit compat X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:48:02 -0000 "David O'Brien" writes: > [ Respect the Reply-to:! ] > > /usr/ports Linux 32-bit compatibility on AMD64 is a mess and too rough > for what is expected of FreeBSD. Anyway... > > We need to decide how to have both Linux i686 and Linux amd64 compat > support live side-by-side. At the moment my leanings are for > /compat/linux32 and /compat/linux. We could also go with /compat/linux > and /compat/linux64 <- taking a page from the Linux LSB naming convention > (ie, they have lib and lib64). > > Linux 32-bit support is most interesting -- that is how we get Acrobat > reader and some other binary-only ports. The only Linux 64-bit things we > might want to run that truly matter 32-bit vs. 64-bit is Oracle and > IBM-DB2. For other applications 32-bit vs. 64-bit is mostly a "Just > Because Its There(tm)" thing. So making Linux 32-bit support the > cleanest looking from a /usr/ports POV has some merit. > > What do others think? > I agree with this 100%. Besides, at the moment the really interesting Linux applications for normal users, like realplayer, are only available in 32-bit mode, AFAIK. --- Gary Jennejohn / garyj[at]jennejohn.org gj[at]freebsd.org garyj[at]denx.de