Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:22:54 -0700 From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] what to name linux 32-bit compat Message-ID: <41EC810E.9020205@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20050118032436.GA5325@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <20050117203818.GA29131@dragon.nuxi.com> <200501172146.17965.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <41EC7D01.2070107@freebsd.org> <20050118032436.GA5325@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Brooks Davis wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 08:05:37PM -0700, Scott Long wrote: > >>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. > > > I think this is a stretch. By this argument we should really be using > /compat/linux-i386 and /compat/linux-amd64 (or would that be x86-64 > since that's that linux calls it). I suspect that if Intel doesn't kill > ia64 entirely, we will be looking at machines where linux64 is > potentially ambiguous in the not too distant a future. > > -- Brooks > Linux/ia64 is sufficiently irrelevant at this point. It might survive in niche areas, but it should be the exception and not part of the rule. Scotthome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41EC810E.9020205>