Mailing List Archive

Hasan Khalil wrote:
>
> On Oct 1, 2005, at 11:25, kito@gentoo.org wrote:
>
>> I would also like to offer a couple different installers, one
>> minimal(~500K, pretty much what we have
>> now) as well as a 'full' install (~should be ~24MB, basically all the
>> utils that `emerge system` pulls in).
>
> So you mean something like a Stage3? I think it would be good to discuss
> this on the ML, so here goes.

I think it is an interesting idea, especially once we have prefixed
installs and perl, python, etc. will all have to be compiled before
portage will be happy.

I have been experimenting with 64-bits as well. I was able to compile a
few things like libxml2 using 64-bits, enabling 64-bits applications
that use those libraries to link against them and use them. This is
great, and once portage supports it, I'd like to have 64-bits versions
of zlib, etc. to be able to have true 64-bits application userland.
Considering Fink doesn't do this and I've seen many requests for MonetDB
using 64-bits on OSX Tiger, I guess some people would be really happy if
they just installed a ~50MB Gentoo thinger and then be able to compile
and use MonetDB using 64-bits on their Macs...


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

On Oct 1, 2005, at 12:38 PM, Grobian wrote:

>
>
> Hasan Khalil wrote:
>> On Oct 1, 2005, at 11:25, kito@gentoo.org wrote:
>>> I would also like to offer a couple different installers, one
>>> minimal(~500K, pretty much what we have
>>> now) as well as a 'full' install (~should be ~24MB, basically all
>>> the utils that `emerge system` pulls in).
>> So you mean something like a Stage3? I think it would be good to
>> discuss this on the ML, so here goes.

More like 10% of a stage1.

>
> I think it is an interesting idea, especially once we have prefixed
> installs and perl, python, etc. will all have to be compiled before
> portage will be happy.

Yes, this is pretty much what I had in mind.

>
> I have been experimenting with 64-bits as well. I was able to
> compile a few things like libxml2 using 64-bits, enabling 64-bits
> applications that use those libraries to link against them and use
> them. This is great, and once portage supports it, I'd like to
> have 64-bits versions of zlib, etc. to be able to have true 64-bits
> application userland. Considering Fink doesn't do this and I've
> seen many requests for MonetDB using 64-bits on OSX Tiger, I guess
> some people would be really happy if they just installed a ~50MB
> Gentoo thinger and then be able to compile and use MonetDB using 64-
> bits on their Macs...

How would an installer solve this problem? Tiger ships with the 64Bit
libraries (`file /usr/lib/crt1.o`) which should allow anyone to build
for 64Bit targets. A separate profile perhaps?

--Kito
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Kito wrote:
>> I have been experimenting with 64-bits as well. I was able to compile
>> a few things like libxml2 using 64-bits, enabling 64-bits applications
>> that use those libraries to link against them and use them. This is
>> great, and once portage supports it, I'd like to have 64-bits versions
>> of zlib, etc. to be able to have true 64-bits application userland.
>> Considering Fink doesn't do this and I've seen many requests for
>> MonetDB using 64-bits on OSX Tiger, I guess some people would be
>> really happy if they just installed a ~50MB Gentoo thinger and then be
>> able to compile and use MonetDB using 64-bits on their Macs...
>
> How would an installer solve this problem? Tiger ships with the 64Bit
> libraries (`file /usr/lib/crt1.o`) which should allow anyone to build
> for 64Bit targets. A separate profile perhaps?

Unfortunately only the system libraries appear to be "fat" and 64-bits,
the rest isn't. The shipping is indeed a problem, merely because for
some packages setting "-arch ppc64" in cflags is not enough. However,
this is a general gentoo problem.

One way to do it, would be to create a installer with "fat" libraries,
and set the -arch cflags correctly (specifying multiple ones makes fat
files) during the bootstrap process. This might not be what an advanced
user wants, but pretty ok for a regular user.
Another way would be just to make a 64-bits installer only and give it a
strong note that its only interesting for people that know what they are
doing. Then again, I haven't yet investigated how far one can come
doing this before you run into problems which are related to the choice
of 64-bits or not. Our gcc-4 compiler guards us from a lot of problems,
in that it doesn't accept things on 32-bits what it used to do there
only. Basically it's only a cflag.

So last way to do it is just to keep it unofficial. That is for example
if I put the 64-bits installer on my website, and give no support + a
lot of warnings. An emerge info then would immediately reveal a 64-bits
savvy user.

well, this is all just dreaming anyway for now.

--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

On Oct 2, 2005, at 1:16 PM, Grobian wrote:

>
>
> Kito wrote:
>>> I have been experimenting with 64-bits as well. I was able to
>>> compile a few things like libxml2 using 64-bits, enabling 64-bits
>>> applications that use those libraries to link against them and
>>> use them. This is great, and once portage supports it, I'd like
>>> to have 64-bits versions of zlib, etc. to be able to have true 64-
>>> bits application userland. Considering Fink doesn't do this and
>>> I've seen many requests for MonetDB using 64-bits on OSX Tiger, I
>>> guess some people would be really happy if they just installed a
>>> ~50MB Gentoo thinger and then be able to compile and use MonetDB
>>> using 64-bits on their Macs...
>> How would an installer solve this problem? Tiger ships with the
>> 64Bit libraries (`file /usr/lib/crt1.o`) which should allow anyone
>> to build for 64Bit targets. A separate profile perhaps?
> Unfortunately only the system libraries appear to be "fat" and 64-
> bits, the rest isn't.

Right, but the libs that are 64-Bit aware should be enough to
bootstrap for a 64-Bit target.

> The shipping is indeed a problem, merely because for some packages
> setting "-arch ppc64" in cflags is not enough. However, this is a
> general gentoo problem.
>
> One way to do it, would be to create a installer with "fat"
> libraries, and set the -arch cflags correctly (specifying multiple
> ones makes fat files) during the bootstrap process. This might not
> be what an advanced user wants, but pretty ok for a regular user.

I've thought about this a lot, and I always come back with the
feeling that fat (or 'universal' if you like marketing terms)
binaries don't really have a place in portage. Ideally we wouldn't
ship anything in an installer that portage doesn't know how to build
itself... which would mean another keyword (ppc64-macos) and profile
( default-darwin/macos/10.4/{x86,x86_64(?),ppc,ppc64} ).
>
> So last way to do it is just to keep it unofficial. That is for
> example if I put the 64-bits installer on my website, and give no
> support + a lot of warnings. An emerge info then would immediately
> reveal a 64-bits savvy user.

I guess I don't follow how you would do this in a pkg installer
without having a valid profile and keyword. We have the overlay now,
so you could keep the profile there without polluting mainline tree.

All that being said, ppc64/darwin is already an extinct species,
despite the fact it never really got started, so I'm not sure how
much work you'd want to put in to this in the long term...

>
> well, this is all just dreaming anyway for now.

And what is life without dreams...

--Kito
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list

Kito wrote:
> Right, but the libs that are 64-Bit aware should be enough to bootstrap
> for a 64-Bit target.

Agreed.

>> One way to do it, would be to create a installer with "fat" libraries,
>> and set the -arch cflags correctly (specifying multiple ones makes fat
>> files) during the bootstrap process. This might not be what an
>> advanced user wants, but pretty ok for a regular user.
>
> I've thought about this a lot, and I always come back with the feeling
> that fat (or 'universal' if you like marketing terms) binaries don't
> really have a place in portage. Ideally we wouldn't ship anything in an
> installer that portage doesn't know how to build itself... which would
> mean another keyword (ppc64-macos) and profile (
> default-darwin/macos/10.4/{x86,x86_64(?),ppc,ppc64} ).

I can live with that. In the end I wouldn't want the ppc and i386 stuff
on my machine if I don't want to use it.

>> So last way to do it is just to keep it unofficial. That is for
>> example if I put the 64-bits installer on my website, and give no
>> support + a lot of warnings. An emerge info then would immediately
>> reveal a 64-bits savvy user.
>
> I guess I don't follow how you would do this in a pkg installer without
> having a valid profile and keyword. We have the overlay now, so you
> could keep the profile there without polluting mainline tree.

For the moment, I won't be doing anything on it :) But I still think
there is nothing necessary (yet) to do it.

> All that being said, ppc64/darwin is already an extinct species, despite
> the fact it never really got started, so I'm not sure how much work
> you'd want to put in to this in the long term...

"64-bits, because I'm worth it" :p
I think this whole idea is not of any interest for the moment. It's
much more important that the infrastructure for a 'normal' Portage on
OSX gets there. (And if I understood correctly, it's underway.)

>> well, this is all just dreaming anyway for now.
>
> And what is life without dreams...

boring!


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo for Mac OS X Project -- Interim Lead
--
gentoo-osx@gentoo.org mailing list