From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "C.Newport" Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 15:53:43 +0000 Subject: Was: Problems with bridging on Sparc64 Message-Id: <200402031553.44155.crn@netunix.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: sparclinux@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 03 February 2004 12:37 pm, Small, Jim wrote: > David, > > Please excuse my ignorance, but is there an easy way to build the bridging > tools/library as 64bit binaries or are you saying that the dependence on > SIOCDEVPRIVATE makes it extremely difficult without redesigning the > bridging software? As a slight aside, do we have any standards in place for the migration to 64 bit ?. So far we have :- a) 64 bit kernel should be standard for Ultras by now in all distributions. b) A small number of applications such as the above NEED to be compiled for 32 or 64 bit. c) Most 32 bit applications are OK on 64 bit kernels and there is no advantage in compiling as 64 bit. d) Some applications would benefit from having a 64 bit version. With more systems (especially X86) becoming 64 bit capable we could be heading for a horrid mess with each distribution doing incompatible things. My suggestion if no standards exist :- The installer should put 64 bit apps in /bin64 and make a symlink from /bin or /sbin only if the machine supports 64 bit. It is probably a bad idea to have such applications under /usr because /usr should be capable of being NFS shared RO by multiple machines. What does the team think ?