[RFC] what to name linux 32-bit compat

[David O'Brien]

On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 09:47:59PM +0100, Gary Jennejohn wrote:
> "David O'Brien" writes:
> > /usr/ports Linux 32-bit compatibility on AMD64 is a mess and too rough
> > for what is expected of FreeBSD.  Anyway...
> > 
> > We need to decide how to have both Linux i686 and Linux amd64 compat
> > support live side-by-side.  At the moment my leanings are for
> > /compat/linux32 and /compat/linux.  We could also go with /compat/linux
> > and /compat/linux64 <- taking a page from the Linux LSB naming convention
> > (ie, they have lib and lib64).
> > 
> > Linux 32-bit support is most interesting -- that is how we get Acrobat
> > reader and some other binary-only ports.  The only Linux 64-bit things we
> > might want to run that truly matter 32-bit vs. 64-bit is Oracle and
> > IBM-DB2.  For other applications 32-bit vs. 64-bit is mostly a "Just
> > Because Its There(tm)" thing.  So making Linux 32-bit support the
> > cleanest looking from a /usr/ports POV has some merit.
> > 
> > What do others think?
> 
> I agree with this 100%. Besides, at the moment the really interesting
> Linux applications for normal users, like realplayer, are only available
> in 32-bit mode, AFAIK.

You didn't actually answer the question. :-)
Or rather I can't tell which way above you're agreeing with. :-(
 
-- 
-- David  (obrien at FreeBSD.org)