On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:01:08PM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > > 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.
nope that is not with qemu it is basically cross buildworld, install in a destdir, install packages in that destdir which is a very common usage that a lot do expect to work > > >>> 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-...@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
pgpwcjP7WXIIi.pgp
Description: PGP signature