svn commit: r266553 - head/release/scripts

[Nathan Whitehorn]

On 05/23/14 09:45, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 09:38:14AM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>> On 05/23/14 09:20, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:52:28AM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>>>> On 05/23/14 08:36, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:19:34AM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
>>>>>> Is there any chance of finally switching the pkg abi identifiers to just
>>>>>> be uname -p?
>>>>>> -Nathan
>>>>> Keeping asking won't make it happen, I have explained a large number of time why it
>>>>> happened, why it is not easy for compatibility and why uname -p is still not
>>>>> representing the ABI we do support, and what flexibility we need that the
>>>>> current string offers to us.
>>>>>
>>>>> if one is willing to do the work, please be my guess, just dig into the archives
>>>>> and join the pkg development otherwise: no it won't happen before a while
>>>>> because we have way too much work on the todo and this item is stored at the
>>>>> very end of this todo.
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> Bapt
>>>> I'm happy to do the work, and have volunteered now many times. If uname
>>>> -p does not describe the ABI fully, then uname -p needs changes on the
>>>> relevant platforms. Which are they? What extra flexibility does the
>>>> string give you if uname -p describes the ABI completely?
>>>> -Nathan
>>> just simple examples in armv6:
>>> - eabi vs oabi
>> OABI is almost entirely dead, and will be entirely dead soon.
> Maybe but still for now it is there and pkg has to work now

We don't provide packages for ARM. Also, no platforms have defaulted to 
OABI for a very long time. Not making a distinction was a deliberate 
decision of the ARM group, since it was meant to be a clean switchover.

>>> - The different float abi (even if only one is supported for now others are
>>>     being worked on)
>> armv6 and armv6hf
>>
>>> - little endian vs big endian
>> armv6 and armv6eb (though I think armv6eb support in general has been
>> removed from the tree, but armeb is still there)
> what about combinaison? armv6 + eb + hf?

That would be armv6hfeb, I assume, if FreeBSD actually supported 
big-endian ARMv6 at all, which it doesn't.

>> These all already exist.
>>
>>> the extras flexibilit is being able to say this binary do support freebsd i386
>>> and amd64 in one key, freebsd:9:x86:*, or or all arches freebsd:10:*
>>>
> arm was en example what about mips?

The same. There is mips64el, mipsel, mips, mips64, etc. that go through 
all possible combinations. This is true for all platforms and has been 
for ages. There was a brief period (2007-2010, I think) where some 
Tier-3 embedded platforms didn't have enough options, but that era was 
obscure and is long past.

>> The second one already would work, wouldn't it? Just replacing x86:64
>> with amd64 won't change anything. The first has to be outweighed by
>> being able to reliably figure out where to fetch from without a lookup
>> table.
>>
>> We also added the kern.supported_archs sysctl last year to all branches
>> to enable figuring out which architectures a given running kernel
>> supports (e.g. amd64 and i386 on most amd64 systems). This was designed
>> specifically to help pkg figure out what packages it can install.
> I know, it means that we can switch only when freebsd 8 and 9 are EOL which means
> in a couple of years

Why does it mean that? That doesn't make sense. A couple of symlinks on 
the FTP server ensure compatibility. For the sysctl, it has been merged 
all the back to 7.

> And it defeats cross installation (which is the reason why the ABI supported is
> read from a binary and not from kernel)

No. That's the point of the sysctl.

> and last thing is the current build packages should just work meaning that we
> would need to have a kind of mapping table

Sure, as a compat measure. No reason to lock it in forever. You could 
also detect old-style strings with a warning and install them 
unconditionally. It's not a big deal.
-nathan