On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 04:15:05PM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > > On 05/23/14 14:34, Bryan Drewery wrote: > > On 2014-05-23 16:19, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > >> On 05/23/14 12:27, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:01:08PM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > >>>> On 05/23/14 10:26, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:11:47AM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > >>>>>> 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 to just > >>>>>>>>>>>> be uname -p? > >>>>>>>>>>>> -Nathan > >>>>>>>>>>> Keeping asking won't make it happen, I have explained a > >>>>>>>>>>> large number 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 that 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 stored at the > >>>>>>>>>>> very end of this todo. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> regards, > >>>>>>>>>>> Bapt > >>>>>>>>>> I'm happy to do the work, and have volunteered now many > >>>>>>>>>> times. If uname > >>>>>>>>>> -p does not describe the ABI fully, then uname -p needs > >>>>>>>>>> changes on the > >>>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>> We don't provide packages for ARM. Also, no platforms have > >>>>>> defaulted to > >>>>>> OABI for a very long time. Not making a distinction was a deliberate > >>>>>> decision of the ARM group, since it was meant to be a clean > >>>>>> switchover. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - The different float abi (even if only one is supported for > >>>>>>>>> now others 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? > >>>>>> That would be armv6hfeb, I assume, if FreeBSD actually supported > >>>>>> big-endian ARMv6 at all, which it doesn't. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> These all already exist. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> the extras flexibilit is being able to say this binary do > >>>>>>>>> support freebsd i386 > >>>>>>>>> and amd64 in one key, freebsd:9:x86:*, or or all arches > >>>>>>>>> freebsd:10:* > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> arm was en example what about mips? > >>>>>> The same. There is mips64el, mipsel, mips, mips64, etc. that go > >>>>>> through > >>>>>> all possible combinations. This is true for all platforms and has > >>>>>> been > >>>>>> for ages. There was a brief period (2007-2010, I think) where some > >>>>>> Tier-3 embedded platforms didn't have enough options, but that > >>>>>> era was > >>>>>> obscure and is long past. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 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 which means > >>>>>>> in a couple of years > >>>>>> Why does it mean that? That doesn't make sense. A couple of > >>>>>> symlinks on > >>>>>> the FTP server ensure compatibility. For the sysctl, it has been > >>>>>> merged > >>>>>> all the back to 7. > >>>>> So We can switch after 8.4 death which is a good news (except if > >>>>> you say that it > >>>>> is in 8.4) > >>>> It means we can do it now. Very few people install i386 packages on > >>>> amd64 anyway. It means people with very old releases on old branches > >>>> might face a warning in an unusual situation. Not a big deal. Since we > >>>> only provide i386 and amd64 packages anyway, this is also a trivial > >>>> special case if you really want that. > >>>> > >>>>>>> And it defeats cross installation (which is the reason why the > >>>>>>> ABI supported is > >>>>>>> read from a binary and not from kernel) > >>>>>> 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. > >>>> uname -p in the chroot (I guess this is with qemu) should return the > >>>> right answer, just as it does with an i386 chroot. If it doesn't, > >>>> something is broken in the qemu user mode support. > >>> nope that is not with qemu it is basically cross buildworld, install > >>> in a > >>> destdir, install packages in that destdir which is a very common > >>> usage that a > >>> lot do expect to work > >>> > >> > >> Knowing a priori which architectures are "supported" by a chroot based > >> on ELF type of /bin/sh doesn't even work. How do you know what kernel > >> will be running in there and how it will be configured? You don't. > >> IA64 can -- sometimes -- run i386 binaries, for example. amd64 may or > >> may not be able to run i386, depending on kernel options. > >> > > > > You're assuming that you would only use a chroot to RUN things. This is > > also useful for building images. Install a world into a chroot, run > > pkg -c install whatever and it picks the right ABI. Just an example. > > No, I'm not. Suppose you make an amd64 jail and install an i386 package > into it. That's fine (or is potentially fine anyway). But there is no > way to be sure since whether it's fine or not depends on the kernel you > happen to run. > > >> In any case, I wouldn't really characterize this situation as "common" > >> in any sense -- and I don't even see why it applies to this > >> discussion. Whatever logic calculates your own private version of > >> architecture strings can calculate the correct ones. Allowing it to > >> ignore the architecture optionally, just like you how you already have > >> to add flags to install in a chroot, would also work. Lots of things > >> like that. This issue is basically wholly unrelated to whether you use > >> normal architecture strings or not. > >> > >> I'm perfectly happy to write 100% of the code to enable pkg to use the > >> same architecture strings that the rest of the operating system uses. > >> Having private ones is just a recipe for confusion. From this > >> discussion, there don't seem to be any actually existing reasons why > >> MACHINE_ARCH doesn't work for this. > > > > pkg is *not* FreeBSD-specific. Is MACHINE_ARCH portable? > > Yes, of course. I think it's part of POSIX. The GNU and OS X versions of > uname have it anyway. > > I'm really quite mystified why you're so insistent on having your own > private ABI identifier strings. If you're really set on this, I of > course can't make you change. As you note, pkg is not something that > lives in FreeBSD and I have no power to change it. And, from this > conversation, I now strongly suspect that if I did put in the work to > fix this, my patch would be ignored or rejected. But it does mystify me. > -Nathan > _______________________________________________ > svn-src-...@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
We are not insistant just we needed something that work and at the time uname -p did not, we exposed our need which really works now, dig in the code try to have the same with uname -p and without regression on the feature we provide, and with a compat/migration path and I will be more than happy, just that is not as easy as it sounds as exposed in that thread I ll for sure integrate the patch if you manage to get it Bapt
pgpaHMb6qc3_e.pgp
Description: PGP signature
