On May 23, 2014, at 3:34 PM, Bryan Drewery <bdrew...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 2014-05-23 16:19, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: >> On 05/23/14 12:27, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>> 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 >> Knowing a priori which architectures are "supported" by a chroot based >> on ELF type of /bin/sh doesn't even work. How do you know what kernel >> will be running in there and how it will be configured? You don't. >> IA64 can -- sometimes -- run i386 binaries, for example. amd64 may or >> may not be able to run i386, depending on kernel options. > > You're assuming that you would only use a chroot to RUN things. This is > also useful for building images. Install a world into a chroot, run > pkg -c install whatever and it picks the right ABI. Just an example. > >> In any case, I wouldn't really characterize this situation as "common" >> in any sense -- and I don't even see why it applies to this >> discussion. Whatever logic calculates your own private version of >> architecture strings can calculate the correct ones. Allowing it to >> ignore the architecture optionally, just like you how you already have >> to add flags to install in a chroot, would also work. Lots of things >> like that. This issue is basically wholly unrelated to whether you use >> normal architecture strings or not. >> I'm perfectly happy to write 100% of the code to enable pkg to use the >> same architecture strings that the rest of the operating system uses. >> Having private ones is just a recipe for confusion. From this >> discussion, there don't seem to be any actually existing reasons why >> MACHINE_ARCH doesn't work for this. > > pkg is *not* FreeBSD-specific. Is MACHINE_ARCH portable? MACHINE_ARCH needs to be the basic unit on FreeBSD. Outside of FreeBSD, all bets are off sure, but if we don’t have an easy way to get from MACHINE_ARCH to the pkg string, then we’ve already lost. What is the specific reason to not use MACHINE_ARCH? I’ve not seen one clearly articulated in this thread that makes any sense. Warner _______________________________________________ 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"
