Many linux ports needing update to support amd64

Alexander Leidinger Alexander at
Fri Jan 7 14:49:43 PST 2005

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:00:38 -0600
"Conrad J. Sabatier" <conrads at> wrote:

> It seems the majority of Linux ports are still designated as
> "ONLY_FOR_ARCHS=i386".  Now that we have 32-bit Linux emulation for
> amd64, isn't it time we updated these ports to reflect this?
> Yesterday I installed the new Realplayer 10 port, but it required a lot
> of editing of dependent ports' Makefiles, which was quite tedious.  I
> eventually got Realplayer installed, and it's working, but all this
> manual fudging of Makefiles needs to be done away with.
> Is anyone currently looking at this problem?

There is the desire to make the linux emulation run on amd64 hardware.
And there is the desire to update the linux userland to a more recent
version (one which is still maintained by the distributor). ATM we're in
a ports freeze, so no work will hit the tree. Both efforts should
coordinate, else there will be conflicts. Maybe the amd64 part can be
done as a sideeffect of the linux userland update. I intended to work on
the linux userland update now that I've commited the consolidation of
the v7 and v8 mixture, but since I'm aware that trevor@ seems to have
prepared "something" already, I haven't started. Unfortunately I don't
know anything specific.

I suggest to wait until portmgr/core resolved some kind of internal
controversy (I suppose you will notice it by either a mail to
freebsd-emulation with a roadmap for the linux update or by a change of
the maintainer field in our linux infrastructure ports).


   If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed...
                ...Oh, wait a minute, he already does.                       Alexander @
  GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91  3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7

More information about the freebsd-amd64 mailing list