[RFC] what to name linux 32-bit compat

Astrodog astrodog at gmail.com
Mon Jan 17 12:48:59 PST 2005

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:38:18 -0800, David O'Brien <obrien at freebsd.org> 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?
> --
> -- David  (obrien at FreeBSD.org)
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-amd64 at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-amd64
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-amd64-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

What about having linux32, linux64, and linux (Which builds whatever
the arch on the local machine is)? Seems like the easiest for all
involved, as well as people with clean, 64-bit safe code, who want to
avoid the problem entirely can just use linux as a dep too, instead of
having to have some ugly kludgery to figure out which one they're on,
and which one they should depend on, based on arch.

--- Harrison Grundy

More information about the freebsd-amd64 mailing list