Re: ABI/architecture identification for packages

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 02:34:03PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> 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?

for packages currently their will be two possible chain for the abi:
the abi defined here or any

any will be for scripts, data, etc.

I was thinking about giving a multi arch possibilities for packages for example:

arch: ["freebsd:9:x86:32", "freebsd:9:x86:64"]

when a package can be installed in both i386 and amd64

and maybe in the Makefile:

PKGARCH=	i386 amd64

or

PKGARCH=	x86:32 x86:64

not decided yet

for scripts:

PKGARCH=	any

But I haven't decided yet :)

regards,
Bapt