From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 2 18:24:54 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2912E16A47C for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 18:24:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [83.120.8.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E313443DBD for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 18:24:42 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (sdybkv@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id kA2IOY6s010220; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 19:24:40 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id kA2IOXKD010219; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 19:24:33 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from olli) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 19:24:33 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <200611021824.kA2IOXKD010219@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, linimon@lonesome.com, freebsd@mail.gbch.net In-Reply-To: X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-stable User-Agent: tin/1.8.2-20060425 ("Shillay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-STABLE (i386)) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:24:40 +0100 (CET) Cc: Subject: Re: 6.x from i386 to amd64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, linimon@lonesome.com, freebsd@mail.gbch.net List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:24:54 -0000 Greg Black wrote: > Mark Linimon wrote: > > Greg Black wrote: > > > I found that a very large number of ports that mattered to me were marked > > > i386 only. > > > > In some cases these designations are obsolete. They will require people- > > power to work through them and see if they are overused. > > [...] > > it will take people with amd64 boxes running native willing to test them > > and report back. > [...] > Fair enough. In my defence, I'm fully committed at present and > I have only one amd64 machine which I need for my real work. I > can't afford to run it in amd64 mode, because so much of what I > need is currently broken in a 64-bit world. By the way, you don't necessarily have to have an amd64 machine in order to be able to run FreeBSSD/amd64 and try 64bit software. Qemu supports emulating an amd64 CPU on an i386 system (and vice versa, for that matter). So you can run FreeBSD/amd64 on top of FreeBSD/i386 inside qemu and play with it. Admittedly it will be noticeably slower than running natively, though, because you can't use the qemu accelerator kernel module when emulating a different architecture. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. I suggested holding a "Python Object Oriented Programming Seminar", but the acronym was unpopular. -- Joseph Strout