Hello,
sorry for the delay, I had a peak work these days and I could not answer before
On 07/10/12 18:57, Juergen Daubert wrote:
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 04:29:40PM +0200, Fredrik Rinnestam wrote:
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 10:28:57AM +0200, Juergen Daubert wrote:
[...]
a) Switch our main development platform to the x86_64 architecture [2],
the first version should be called CRUX 3.0.
At the time Per Liden had created CRUX, the i686 processor on base of
the 32-bit Intel IA-32 architecture was state of the art and therefore
chosen by him as the default optimization for CRUX. But nowadays, over
10 years later [2], the i686 arch is more or less obsolete, at least
for desktop machines. The 64-bit extension to the x86 instruction set,
mostly called x86_64, is the the new standard now.
We had extensive discussions on IRC about the type of system we want,
a pure 64-bit or a multilib system.
I'm running purelib64 in 2 boxes without any problem, and so far I have not
found
any impediment for the daily work, anyways I'm open to multilib and I'd be happy
to work with it long as they have advantages.
The main consensus is that we ship a "multilib ready" system, but
without the 32-bit compatibility libraries except for glibc-32. The
reason for this exceptions is the gcc compiler, which needs the
glibc-32 at build- but not at run-time.
I'm not as familiar as you with multilib, so can someone point a link or
information about the problem with gcc compiler and glibc32 at buildtime?
On the other hand, what would be the impact for a port maintainer? [2]
Well, there's something I have really clear, and I like. If we finally switch
to a 64bit system, it must be transparent to the user and have native libraries
in /lib, /usr/lib, ... as it has always been.
I have another 64-bit systems at office and for what I see the one used in
rhel/fedora/centos and in the FHS is that the /lib/ directory (and /usr/lib/)
is for 32-bit libraries, and 64-bit libraries go in /lib64 (and /usr/lib64/).
Debian uses /lib/ for 64-bit libraries, and puts 32-bit in *lib32.
Unsurprising I fully support a change in direction towards x86_64. I
also would prefer to ship a stripped down x86_64 only version on the ISO
but with the option to simply add multilib binaries if one chooses to do
so. shipping glibc-32 is a good compromise.
+1
b) Keep our repository layout as simple as possible
At the moment we have official repos for i686 and overlay repos for
x86_64 and multilib on top of those. That's ok and the best way to do
it at the moment, but not really neat for the final solution.
I'd suggest to merge everything needed by a) into our core/opt/xorg
repos and add only _one_ additional repo, probably called 'lib32',
for the compatibility libraries.
Yes. Keeping only one "compatibility overlay" repo would simplify things
a lot. Currently mesa3d is the only xorg port that needs a specific
x86_64 .footprint. I've been reluctant to do anything about this since
it would require a new repo for just one port, with the current setup.
Not sure if we both mean the same here. For me the lib32 repo is only
for additional ports that are build for multilib purpose.
Or in other words everything that is currently in one of the *-multilib
repositories and named like *-32.
If you are talking about a overlay repo for i686, we should name it
differently. But one overlay repo for core/opt/xorg would be fine here
as well, given that we need one, see c) below.
Well lib32 repo or whatever be called means that we would make our life easier.
That means we should avoid being redundant, right?
Overlays could be an alternative, but what about our current git repos/branches
organization? should we move {core,opt,xorg,contrib}.git to *-32 names too?
or maybe we can start to merge changes from *-x86_64 repos to new 3.x branches?
whats the plan and ideas?
Maybe I'm wrong, but there are many things to do and since we're a small team
[2]
we must study well the next steps.
c) Create a final CRUX 2.7.2 for i686
TBH I'm unsure if we should do that, but it would be a nice service
for all people using CRUX on older hardware and might be the basis
for contributed i686 ISOs in the future. IMO updated xorg stuff is
a must-have for such a version, however, as the version number 2.7.2
suggests, I wouldn't change the toolchain.
The main idea behind is to have a final mostly up-to-date system with
a very solid toolchain for the 'old' architecture.
Hmm. I do think i686 deserves a new and up to date release (2.8 or 3.0,
whatever). I'm not sure it's fair to all the i686 users to just drop a
"sorry, no longer supported" bombshell without prior warning. As it has
been for a couple of years now, x86_64 has been "unofficial" and
"experimental", possibly scaring people away from x86_64 and to i686.
Yeah, that's all right, but who should do all the work? I got the
impression that I'm the only maintainer still using i686 for the
daily work. After a finally switch to x86_64 I'm no longer able to
work on i686, at least not officially. Don't get me wrong, I'm not
basically against a all-new 2.8 for i686, but I'm open for suggestion
who/how we can do it.
I'm still using i686 for the daily work and IMO a new CRUX 2.7.2 would be fine.
Same toolchain + udev 182 sounds like a good inflection point that marks the end
of an era, but I don't wanna close the door to future situations related to
i686.
ATM around 70% of the systems I'm running are only i686 capable and I think that
there are still many people like me out there.
Atleast we should ask around on the mailinglist if people are ready and
ok with us "dropping" i686 in favor of x86_64.
Sure, such a intrusive change should be announced as soon as possible.
Also we could make an online poll (doodle.com, etc.) and/or we can recover the
idea
of IRC meetings.
d) Device management
[...]
[...]
Yeah, sticking with udev 182 for now would be the most conservative
but good working solution.
Btw, Debian and Ubuntu are still using udev 175 ;)
Since it is another major controversial issue, I would leave that discussion for
another time and keep udev 182 for now. However, that does not mean that I like
the
future plans for udev/systemd.
What do you think?
I think it's time for a new release! :)
+1
[1] http://crux.nu/Wiki/TODO28
[2] One may ask why not doing both alongside, but that is too much
work for our little team, at least as a official version.
[3] http://crux.nu/Main/History
[4] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.distributions.crux.devel/2284
[5] From my personal point of view I was never really happy with
udev. The whole development is unpredictable and udev is doing
all kind of "magic" behind my back.
Best regards,
--
Jose V Beneyto | http://sepen.it.cx/
_______________________________________________
crux-devel mailing list
crux-devel@lists.crux.nu
http://lists.crux.nu/mailman/listinfo/crux-devel
