On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Alan Coopersmith <alan.coopersm...@sun.com> wrote: > > Martin Bochnig wrote: >> Even on 2009.06_b111: >> mar...@opensolaris:~$ uname -m >> i86pc >> mar...@opensolaris:~$ uname -p >> i386 >> mar...@opensolaris:~$ uname -a >> SunOS opensolaris 5.11 snv_111 i86pc i386 i86pc Solaris >> mar...@opensolaris:~$ arch -k >> i86pc >> mar...@opensolaris:~$ isainfo -k >> amd64 >> --->> >> Everything but isainfo shows incorrect results (not only o this box, on >> _many_). >> <<--- > > Those all look correct to me. Would you want your box to report that it > can't > run i386 binaries and break far more software and scripts?
Yes, exactly. Please. Let's look 10 years ahead. I'm not against the Solaris way (in contrast to LinUX) that bo th kernels are shipped in the same distro and the right one is chosen automatically. Further: Be aware that I am - and always have been - totally pro- 32bit_userland_libs_all_here___/___$plat64_all_there on the same system. That's great. But IMO - as per definition - when you boot into a 32bit kernel you are not running the same platform, as if you boot the platform's corresponding 64bit kernel. Those two (such as sparcv8plus vs. sparcv9 on Ultra I and II systems, or i386 vs. amd64 on the PC, are _distinct_ platforms. And as long as arch or uname output dos not reflect this, I consider it a bug, very objectively do so. I see the point, but have a different opinion for a few years already, as written earlier - from time to time. -- %martin _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
