From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 18 03:05:40 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 EA81516A4CE; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:05:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E0F43D54; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:05:40 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Received: from [192.168.254.12] (g4.samsco.home [192.168.254.12]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j0I39oYq022622; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:09:51 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from scottl@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <41EC7D01.2070107@freebsd.org> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:05:37 -0700 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: <20050117203818.GA29131@dragon.nuxi.com> <200501172146.17965.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200501172146.17965.jhb@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=3.8 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on pooker.samsco.org cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org 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: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:05:41 -0000 John Baldwin wrote: > On Monday 17 January 2005 03:38 pm, David O'Brien wrote: > >>[ 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? > > > Personally, I think /compat/linux32 and /compat/linux (for linux64) would be > the best way to go. The idea being that /compat/linux runs native binaries > on any given arch, and if there's more than one arch supported, the > non-native ones get the funky names. I don't think it will really matter all > to the end user much as acroread goes in /usr/local/bin and is in the path > and that's all the user has to worry about. The ports stuff to put linux32 > in /compat/linux32 on amd64 is going to be stuff the user doesn't have to > worry or care about, so I don't think there's any user-visible benefit to > linux and linux64 versus linux32 and linux. > Having different naming schemes for identical bits is risks confusion and inconsistency for both ports mainainers and ports users. I agree that your scheme is attractive, but I think that consistency is more important. Also, I'd say that we should probably think about leaning in the direction of the LSB for linux compat. So my vote is that on all platforms, /compat/linux is for 32-bit and /compat/linux64 is for 64-bit. Scott