Quoting Bruce Cran <bruce_at_cran.org.uk> (from Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:26:42 +0000): > On 20 Mar 2012, at 10:20, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > >> i386-32 and amd64-64 is weird and confusing. >> >> IMO, you should go either with x86-{32,64} names, or with i386/amd64, >> not with a mix. > > Would we ever want to support something like x32 from Linux (which > might be amd64-32)? > http://www.linuxplumbersconf.org/2011/ocw/sessions/531 Not related to x32, but related to the Linux keyword (yes, I'm in the wrong branch of this thread, but I don't have the root anymore): Can you please explain how the linuxulator ports (linux_base-*) fit into this? linux_base-f10 contains 32bit linux binaries, which run in the linuxulator on i386 and amd64. If someone steps up and finishes the 64bit linux emulation on amd64, we would be able to use a linux_base(32) and a linux_base64 (or however we want to name them then) on amd64 (both at the same time). The content of the packages generated on i386 can be used on amd64 (both are generated from the same linux binary RPMs and the few FreeBSD modifications are rm's, symlinks and config changes). Can you please explain and/or give examples which kind of metadata those ports would get? Bye, Alexander. -- Preserve wildlife -- pickle a squirrel today! http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander _at_ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild _at_ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137Received on Wed Mar 21 2012 - 12:34:30 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:25 UTC