Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 19:26:36 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> To: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r266553 - head/release/scripts Message-ID: <20140523172636.GK72340@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <537F8153.7080808@freebsd.org> References: <201405221922.s4MJM4Y9025265@svn.freebsd.org> <537F6706.6070509@freebsd.org> <20140523153619.GF72340@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <537F6EBC.3080008@freebsd.org> <20140523162020.GG72340@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <537F7976.3060705@freebsd.org> <20140523164521.GH72340@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <537F8153.7080808@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--vbzKE9fGfpHIBC6T Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:11:47AM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: >=20 > 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 t= o just > >>>>>> be uname -p? > >>>>>> -Nathan > >>>>> Keeping asking won't make it happen, I have explained a large numbe= r 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 th= at 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 stor= ed at the > >>>>> very end of this todo. > >>>>> > >>>>> regards, > >>>>> Bapt > >>>> I'm happy to do the work, and have volunteered now many times. If un= ame > >>>> -p does not describe the ABI fully, then uname -p needs changes on t= he > >>>> 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 >=20 > We don't provide packages for ARM. Also, no platforms have defaulted to= =20 > OABI for a very long time. Not making a distinction was a deliberate=20 > decision of the ARM group, since it was meant to be a clean switchover. >=20 > >>> - The different float abi (even if only one is supported for now othe= rs 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? >=20 > That would be armv6hfeb, I assume, if FreeBSD actually supported=20 > big-endian ARMv6 at all, which it doesn't. >=20 > >> These all already exist. > >> > >>> the extras flexibilit is being able to say this binary do support fre= ebsd i386 > >>> and amd64 in one key, freebsd:9:x86:*, or or all arches freebsd:10:* > >>> > > arm was en example what about mips? >=20 > The same. There is mips64el, mipsel, mips, mips64, etc. that go through= =20 > all possible combinations. This is true for all platforms and has been=20 > for ages. There was a brief period (2007-2010, I think) where some=20 > Tier-3 embedded platforms didn't have enough options, but that era was=20 > obscure and is long past. >=20 > >> 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 w= hich means > > in a couple of years >=20 > Why does it mean that? That doesn't make sense. A couple of symlinks on= =20 > the FTP server ensure compatibility. For the sysctl, it has been merged= =20 > all the back to 7. So We can switch after 8.4 death which is a good news (except if you say th= at it is in 8.4) >=20 > > And it defeats cross installation (which is the reason why the ABI supp= orted is > > read from a binary and not from kernel) >=20 > 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. >=20 > > and last thing is the current build packages should just work meaning t= hat we > > would need to have a kind of mapping table >=20 > Sure, as a compat measure. No reason to lock it in forever. You could=20 > also detect old-style strings with a warning and install them=20 > unconditionally. It's not a big deal. sure but one has to write it :) > -nathan >=20 regards, Bapt --vbzKE9fGfpHIBC6T Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlN/hMwACgkQ8kTtMUmk6Ex9mgCbBk7yesPgm0JNLT9LUkA+09pz UdYAnjPMSDStELEef3/zmXWGkDs0iV6G =Hh5Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vbzKE9fGfpHIBC6T--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140523172636.GK72340>