Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:44:23 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Gary Jennejohn <garyj@jennejohn.org> Cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] what to name linux 32-bit compat Message-ID: <20050118034423.GA37298@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <200501172047.j0HKlxS7022766@peedub.jennejohn.org> References: <20050117203818.GA29131@dragon.nuxi.com> <200501172047.j0HKlxS7022766@peedub.jennejohn.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 09:47:59PM +0100, Gary Jennejohn wrote: > "David O'Brien" writes: > > /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? > > I agree with this 100%. Besides, at the moment the really interesting > Linux applications for normal users, like realplayer, are only available > in 32-bit mode, AFAIK. You didn't actually answer the question. :-) Or rather I can't tell which way above you're agreeing with. :-( -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050118034423.GA37298>