From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 18 03:38:50 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 A84B916A501 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:38:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail14.speakeasy.net (mail22.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.24]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C72443D48 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:38:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 20364 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2005 03:38:47 -0000 Received: from dsl027-160-063.atl1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) encrypted SMTP for ; 18 Jan 2005 03:38:46 -0000 Received: from slimer.baldwin.cx (slimer.baldwin.cx [192.168.0.16]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j0I3cgqE092717; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:38:44 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) From: John Baldwin To: Brooks Davis Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:35:34 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <20050117203818.GA29131@dragon.nuxi.com> <41EC7D01.2070107@freebsd.org> <20050118032436.GA5325@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <20050118032436.GA5325@odin.ac.hmc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200501172235.34509.jhb@FreeBSD.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on server.baldwin.cx cc: Scott Long 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 03:38:50 -0000 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 <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org