On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 10:35:41AM -0400, Mike Meyer wrote: > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed: > > There are a few ways you can go. The simplest is to install a > > complete i386 world in e.g. /compat/ia32 and have i386 packages > > installed there, and change the kernel to do a "magic directory > > lookup" for i386 binaries that does path munging like the linuxulator > > does with /compat/linux. > > Actually, the simplest is to install a virtual machine and just use > that. But none of these is quite ideal. > > > If you want the i386 packages to live in /usr/local alongside the > > amd64 packages, you'll need to do something like adding an @arch > > directive to the +CONTENTS file recorded in /var/db/pkg, and add some > > checking to pkg_add to ensure that when you install a package, > > everything it depends on was built for the same architecture. > > Which is pretty much what I pointed out in my original request. Except > you don't really need everything it depends on to be built for the > same architecture. If your port needs gmake to build, or uses > ghostscript to do ps->jpeg conversion or some such, it won't really > care what architecture the executables were built for - just that they > run. It would help if requirements were flagged with whether or not > they required the same architecture.
You have to be more careful than this, because a lot of ports have architecture-dependent on-disk formats for their data files (obviously not the jpeg example, but there are lots of other cases that use a non-portable storage format). In practise avoiding all these conflicts will be very restrictive: as soon as you have installed a moderate number of amd64 packages, you lose the ability to install most i386 packages because of these header/library/data file conflicts (e.g. you can't install an i386 gtk app if you are running a gnome desktop). Which means you're back to installing the i386 packages in a separate prefix, i.e. option 1. > > You'd need to also add these checks to bsd.port.mk so it exits > > gracefully when someone tries to natively compile a port for which > > non-native dependencies are installed (e.g. it's going to be really > > unhappy if it finds i386 headers or libraries). This method might be > > more trouble than it's worth. > > Again, it might or might not be unhappy. But now you're venturing into > ports as opposed to the package system. I have a whole other list of > things to consider there. The point is that the real problem is: "how do you arrange the bits on disk", not "how do you wrap that in a package system". Until you figure out a workable on-disk arrangement for the files, questions about packaging are not relevant. And it seems that option 1 is the only workable one in practise (unless you have some other idea), which can easily be achieved today with a couple of hours of kernel hacking. Kris _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
