Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 10:57:36 -0600 From: Guy Helmer <guy.helmer@gmail.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r258672 - in head: . share/mk Message-ID: <90DAAE00-34A2-4028-BD45-FFEA280CFC3B@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <52959276.7070803@wemm.org> References: <201311270454.rAR4sOqI004103@svn.freebsd.org> <20131127050358.GG1710@glenbarber.us> <52959276.7070803@wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Nov 27, 2013, at 12:34 AM, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> wrote: > On 11/26/13, 9:03 PM, Glen Barber wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 04:54:24AM +0000, Peter Wemm wrote: >>> Author: peter >>> Date: Wed Nov 27 04:54:23 2013 >>> New Revision: 258672 >>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/258672 >>> >>> Log: >>> At great personal risk, change the default for LIB32 from yes to no. As >>> mentioned in UPDATING, you can even do it as an as-needed operation after >>> doing a buildworld/installworld. You can set WITH_LIB32=yes in make.conf >>> or src.conf. >>> >> >> Thank you. Long overdue, IMHO. >> >> Glen >> > > A slightly longer explanation of what I was thinking: > > - There's a new round of 'make -j' problems lurking in there. We are > missing chunks of the ordering glue that cause libraries to be built in the > right order when they depend on each other. > - It's a waste of cpu time for the usual case, particularly for the 11.x > cycle for the next 1-2 years. > - We don't build them properly - we invent cpu flags etc. > > The usual use case for 32 bit binaries seems to be: > - running a 32 bit chroot or jail - this is unaffected. > - running old binaries, usually from 4.x or 6.x when the 64 bit port was > really green - WITH_LIB32 doesn't actually help much with this because most > of the libraries are missing. > > It seems more likely we can do a better job with packages. With some > massaging, we should be able to use the compat-6.x/i386 libraries as-is, and > solve the "old 4.x/6.x binary" issue in one go. > > However, ld-elf32.so.1 does require special handling. I have something in > mind that might make this moot though. > > I suspect I've made the powerpc folks angry though… > FWIW, this would break 3rd-party software I use on amd64 that was only provided as i386 binaries. Guy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?90DAAE00-34A2-4028-BD45-FFEA280CFC3B>