6.x from i386 to amd64

[Mark Linimon]

On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:31:34PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote:
> In response to Greg Black <freebsd at mail.gbch.net>:
> > The state of the software out there is disgracefully far from
> > being ready for 64-bit platforms -- after wasting weeks in a
> > vain attempt to get a workable development environment on my
> > amd64 setup, I've just completed a move to i386 (by a fresh
> > install).
> 
> Are there open PRs on this?  We've not had any problems.  Although
> our amd64 deployment is still young, we have several machines humming
> away happily.  Where did you have problems, specifically?

The state of the amd64 ports (and especially packages) lags the i386 ones,
and I am trying to come up with some tools to quantify exactly how much
and why.  Travel and time constraints have prevented this being completed.
(I wanted it done before 6.2, alas.  OTOH, the package-upload-status stuff
may be completed before EuroBSDCon: it's really close.)

>From what I can surmise from data so far, the problems are:

 - linux emulation.  This may have just been fixed.
 - certain ports have i386 binaries (can't be fixed)
 - certain ports have i386 asm code (can be fixed if there is fallback
   C code)
 - the "server" type ports are not in that bad a shape; the "desktop"
   ports certainly are

But until people start a) using amd64 more heavily and b) giving us
step-by-step feedback on the problems, we're going to be stuck in this
undesireable place, where no one really wants to be.

I'm not trying to be critical of the OP here, I really want to try to fix
the problems and bring amd64 up as close to parity with i386 as feasible.
So I am looking for volunteers and feedback.

If the PRs are too slow-moving, I am willing to set up a page on a wiki
where problems can be more quickly listed and maybe addressed.

I'm open to any brainstorming ideas on how we can improve communication
and collaboration here.

mcl