From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 20 13:12:20 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A99E7106564A for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:12:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from martin@lispworks.com) Received: from lwfs1-cam.cam.lispworks.com (mail.lispworks.com [193.34.186.230]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D85058FC13 for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:12:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from higson.cam.lispworks.com (higson [192.168.1.7]) by lwfs1-cam.cam.lispworks.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q0KDCG0p052325; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:12:16 GMT (envelope-from martin@lispworks.com) Received: from higson.cam.lispworks.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by higson.cam.lispworks.com (8.14.4) id q0KDCG3B024786; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:12:16 GMT Received: (from martin@localhost) by higson.cam.lispworks.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id q0KDCGUP024782; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:12:16 GMT Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:12:16 GMT Message-Id: <201201201312.q0KDCGUP024782@higson.cam.lispworks.com> From: Martin Simmons To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <4F1872C9.50000@dawncrow.de> (message from =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andr=E9_Hentschel?= on Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:45:13 +0100) References: <4F1872C9.50000@dawncrow.de> Subject: Re: Wine-fbsd64 updated to 1.3.36 (32bit Wine for 64bit FreeBSD) X-BeenThere: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Emulators of other operating systems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:12:20 -0000 >>>>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:45:13 +0100, =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andr=E9 Hentschel?= said: > > >> >>> > >> >>> To answer your question directly, I have put no thought or effort into wine64. > >> >> > >> >> There is still a need for the 32bit wine, as the wow64 build will ONLY > >> >> run 64bit windows apps, so for the majority of applications and games, > >> >> we'll still need the 32bit wine. > >> > > >> > Is that because wow64 is unstable in wine64? > >> > > >> > Wow64's reason for existence is to run 32-bit Windows binaries on 64-bit > >> > Windows/Wine and it works pretty well for most applications. > >> > > >> > __Martin > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > freebsd-emulation at freebsd.org mailing list > >> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-emulation > >> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-emulation-unsubscribe at freebsd.org" > >> wow64 doesnt -exist- in wine64 unless you compile the 32bit wine > >> alongside it. > >> > >> You have to build it twice, to get two binaries "wine" and "wine64" and > >> if you build them "properly" what happens when you attempt to execute a > >> 64bit app with "wine" it's automatically relaunched with "wine64" But > >> the reverse is NOT true. > > > > OK, that's what I would call unstable. Eventually though, I would expect a > > packaged wine64 to include wow64, just like Windows does. > > That's not unstable, that's the way it needs to be done. Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to sound critical of Wine. > To clarify this confusing thread: > wine64 as standalone can run 64-bit windows apps (on a 64-bit processor of course) > wine(32) can run 32-bit windows apps > a wow64 setup means wine64 and wine(32) side by side with some > exchange mechanisms to run 32-bit apps in the same wineprefix as 64-bit ones > > Linux distros handle packaging that differently: > fedora uses the i386 package as a dependency, arch builds both together I'm glad that it is just a packaging issue (the original topic of this thread). __Martin