Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:35:34 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@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: <200501172235.34509.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20050118032436.GA5325@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <20050117203818.GA29131@dragon.nuxi.com> <41EC7D01.2070107@freebsd.org> <20050118032436.GA5325@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 17 January 2005 10:24 pm, 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. Actually, I think going the non-ambiguous route and using the fuller names like that (now that I see it) is probably the best bet when there is more than one possibility. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200501172235.34509.jhb>