Bart Smaalders wrote: >>> Seriously, though, I'm not sure that i386 captures this variant >>> fully. >> >> Maybe it should be `uname -m` rather than `uname -p` but then that >> gives sun4v rather than space. But maybe that is what we want. >> >> However I think what we really want is `isainfo` or maybe `isainfo -n`. >> >> It might even be desireable in some cases to use `isalist` output >> rather than `isainfo` >> >> I think that `uname -p` is far too limiting for variant.arch on x86 >> but `uname -p` is interesting for sparc (because it distinguishes >> sun4u from sun4v etc). >> > > It's not clear to me that sun4u and sun4v are actually variants; eg that > they conflict in the filesystem. I'd certainly like to be able to > construct images that boot either sun4u or sun4v.
True the sound more like facets than variants and yes just like I'd want an image that booted either sun4u or sun4v I'd want one that booted on x86 32bit without SSE or [amd64] 64bit. The fact that on x86 `uname -p` still returns i386 when we don't actually support booting on that such systems is annoying maybe it should say i586 :-) because I think that is the oldest we actually can boot on. Also what would arch be for IPS on non OpenSolaris systems ? And hopefully one day we will need to deal with PowerPC (or is that ppc ;-) and MIPS and ARM as well for OpenSolaris. -- Darren J Moffat _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
