On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Aurélien Larcher <
aurelien.larc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There's something wrong with this picture...
> >
>
> I do not think there is, considering that I was asking about the long term
> goal and not providing a transition recipe to be implemented right
> > Hello,
> >
> > There's something wrong with this picture...
> > >
> >
> > I do not think there is, considering that I was asking about the long
> term
> > goal and not providing a transition recipe to be implemented right away.
> >
>
> The problem that I see is that there is neither an
> > The next OI Hipster snapshot will no pretend to support 32bit CPUS.
The question is here, booting the 32-bit Kernel. That might be abandoned.
32-bit programs can continue to run as well as 64-bit programs
If the question is about changing the directory layout, I would vote
for *don't* change
>
> Obviously, unilaterally dropping 32-bit support by providing only 64-bit
> components also breaks binary compatibility on 32-bit systems, as those
> systems are unable to run 64-bit executables or link 64-bit libraries
> into 32-bit executables.
>
Seriously, I wrote ship 32bit when it makes
On 01/22/16 01:23 PM, Tim Mooney wrote:
In regard to: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] 32-bit support in OpenIndiana...:
On the other hand, to properly utilize the attractive feature of
transparently supporting both
32-bit and 64-bit systems via isaexec,
When there was a giant corporation funding
Hello,
There's something wrong with this picture...
>
I do not think there is, considering that I was asking about the long term
goal and not providing a transition recipe to be implemented right away.
>
>
>
> So if your goal is really to drop 32-bit support (and thereby alienate
> those with
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Alan Coopersmith <
alan.coopersm...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 01/22/16 11:32 AM, Bruce Lilly wrote:
>
>> 1. time_t (via illumos; this shouldn't be rocket science -- both NetBSD
>> and
>> OpenBSD have
>> 64-bit time_t on both 32- and 64-bit systems)
>>
>
>
>
>
>> Obviously, unilaterally dropping 32-bit support by providing only 64-bit
>> components also breaks binary compatibility on 32-bit systems, as those
>> systems are unable to run 64-bit executables or link 64-bit libraries
>> into 32-bit executables.
>>
>
> Seriously, I wrote ship 32bit when
In regard to: Re: [OpenIndiana-discuss] 32-bit support in OpenIndiana...:
On the other hand, to properly utilize the attractive feature of
transparently supporting both
32-bit and 64-bit systems via isaexec,
When there was a giant corporation funding development, isaexec was a neat
feature.
There's something wrong with this picture...
Although OI inherited isaexec and *could* ship both 32- and 64-bit
executables and libraries,
presently only 32-bit libraries are available in many cases (e.g. gamin).
Also, the default
compilation on 64-bit systems produces 32-bit executables (and
Hello,
> Today I've shipped PostgreSQL 9.5. AMD64 version still doesn't have
> PL/Perl support, because we ship 32-bit Perl. The next Perl version which
> we ship will be 64-bit only. I don't think there's much benefit in
> supporting 32bit systems. So, consider this an official statement.
>
>
22 января 2016 г. 18:03:14 CET, Alexander Pyhalov пишет:
>On 02/16/2015 13:06, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> We currently support (in some way) 32-bit systems. We avoid shipping
>> 64-binaries in default path or use isaexec for such things.
>> But do we really need it? I
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Aurélien Larcher <
aurelien.larc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This discussion is actually a call for devising an organized plan !
> So what are you complaining about ?
>
I saw no call for discussion, only an official statement that 32-bit
support is dropped.
> So
Hello all,
I'm migrating a laptop to a new hdd, and opened a can of worms. Would anyone
share ideas on catching them? :)
1) Initially the new disk was in an USB cradle, so its 'type' in Solaris format
saved that string. It is quite inconvenient when I've now swapped the disks and
use the
On 01/22/2016 14:39, Gabriele Bulfon wrote:
Hi,
anyone knows how to get rid of this?
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.illumos.general/2980
looks like I encountered the same trying to build latest Thunderbird.
Can't find the relative patch that's probably already in Firefox latest, that I
Hi,
anyone knows how to get rid of this?
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.illumos.general/2980
looks like I encountered the same trying to build latest Thunderbird.
Can't find the relative patch that's probably already in Firefox latest, that I
could build.
Gabriele
Alexander Pyhalov писал 23.01.2016 08:21:
OmniOS and Dilos already doesn't claim to support 64-bit binaries.
Dilos I think is closer to us,
Need to sleep more. I mean don't support 32-bit systems.
---
System Administrator of Southern Federal University Computer Center
As there were several comments, I'd like to clarify the plan and answer
some questions.
The overall goal is to decline less from upstream userland-gate and
x-s12-clone.
We are going to follow the path which was chosen by Oracle in
userland-gate.
Basic macroses are not touched. Compilers
On 02/16/2015 13:06, Alexander Pyhalov wrote:
Hello.
We currently support (in some way) 32-bit systems. We avoid shipping
64-binaries in default path or use isaexec for such things.
But do we really need it? I haven't seen PC (not speaking about server)
without 64-bit CPU for at least 8 years.
Hello,
>
> I saw no call for discussion, only an official statement that 32-bit
> support is dropped.
>
There is such thing as "official statement" here, just volunteers
evaluating what can be achieved in a realistic way and given the demand.
>
> If the source for the installer is there, it's
20 matches
Mail list logo