On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 09:33:11AM -0700, David Mosberger wrote:
> I think LSB is correct in suggesting /libXX for the native code model
> and "something" else for emulated code models. /opt/emu32 is clearly
> a silly name though: it mixes up the data model and the code model
> again. For the IA-64 Linux project, we're currently using
> /emul/ia32-linux for the IA-32 subsystem. (If there is strong
> objection and good reasons to reject the "/emul" prefix, I suppose we
> could use /opt/emu/ia32-linux/ instead.)
Don't put it in /opt. For something like a binray emulator /opt
is just silly.
Currently mips and sparc use /usr/gnemul/<opsys>, Linux-ABI for ix86
uses /emul/<opsys>. I'd suggest going for one of those, possibly
the latter (:)).
> A related question is whether /emul/ is reserved for "same OS"
> emulation. E.g., where would a Windows emulator go? If /emul/ only
> ever contains Linux emulators, then we could change the prefix to
> /emul/ia32/ but, from a user perspective, I think it would be
> preferable if /emul/ were allowed to contain foreign OS emulators as
> well.
It does. On Linux-ABI I use e.g. /emul/osr5, /emul/uw7 and /emul/svr4.
Id suggest using /emul/<opsys> for emulations of another operating
system for the same architecture, /emul/<arch>-<opsys> for non-native.
Windows should go into /emul/win64 and /emul/ia32-win32.
Christoph
--
Whip me. Beat me. Make me maintain AIX.
