Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:30:34 +1000
From:      Andrew Reilly <andrew-freebsd@areilly.bpc-users.org>
To:        Pete French <petefrench@ticketswitch.com>
Cc:        amd64@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: amd64/104311: ports/wine should be installable on amd64
Message-ID:  <20061013043034.GA71990@duncan.reilly.home>
In-Reply-To: <E1GY1Zt-000Gi6-Lr@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk>
References:  <E1GY1Zt-000Gi6-Lr@dilbert.firstcallgroup.co.uk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 03:30:29PM +0100, Pete French wrote:
> >  If wine is important to you, then you have 3 choices:
> >  
> >  1. submit patches to create the lib32-* library ports and the
> >  necessary patches to Mk/bsd.ports.mk and emulators/wine to allow it to
> >  build on the amd64 architecture.
> 
> Hmmm, now what I am about to suggest is probably going to sound stupid,
> but when I need to run a 32 bit executable under 64 bit I dont bother with
> all that library junk, I simply static link it. So would it not be possible
> just to produce a staticly linked wine executable and install that ? No
> need for library ports and fixing dynamic linking or any of that stuff.
> It's always worked fine for me with my own code, I dont see why it couldnt
> be applied to ports too.
> 
> How hard is it to tell wine (or any other port) to build staticly when it is
> being compiled on an i386 box ?

That won't work with wine, I'm fairly certain.  In order to look
sufficiently similar to a Windows environment, you have to have
something that looks like DLLs.  Wine, just like Windows, has a
gazillion dynamically loadable libraries, for that reason.
Run-time linking is very much part of the windows experience...

Cheers,

-- 
Andrew



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20061013043034.GA71990>