On 05/23/14 10:26, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:11:47AM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
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.
So We can switch after 8.4 death which is a good news (except if you say that it
is in 8.4)
It means we can do it now. Very few people install i386 packages on
amd64 anyway. It means people with very old releases on old branches
might face a warning in an unusual situation. Not a big deal. Since we
only provide i386 and amd64 packages anyway, this is also a trivial
special case if you really want that.
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.
I'm speaking of installing packages in a arm chroot on a amd64 host I will need
to know what arch could be supported by the "content" of the chroot.
uname -p in the chroot (I guess this is with qemu) should return the
right answer, just as it does with an i386 chroot. If it doesn't,
something is broken in the qemu user mode support.
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.
sure but one has to write it :)
That's fine. I'm happy to.
-Nathan
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
