Re: [Devil-linux-develop] lfssystem for 1.5

[Serge L. <ser...@gm...>]

Hi, let me add my 2 cents.

On 11/19/2010 04:59 PM, Bruce Smith wrote:
>> I’m contemplating on how the lfssystem for 1.5 should look like.
>>
>> DL 1.5 will be available as 32 and 64 bit version, so we need to either have
>> 2 different lfssystems  or one multilib.
>>
>> I’m currently more leaning towards the multilib.
>
> Yes, I'd go with multilib.
You know, I've been trying to build 64bit DL during a couple of years. And I 
even managed to get it several times, but the result didn't satisfy me. The main 
problem we'll face is compilation failures due to multi-arch libs availability. 
In my case a lot of 64bit applications try to link against 32lib :( Most cases 
are autoconf mistakes, which are possible to minimize by libs separation, but 
the efforts are huge. The easiest way was a pure 64bit lfssystems. However, I'm 
not the best release engineer and my problems might be related to lack of 
knowledge/experience/etc. So, lets try with the most attractive approach for 
majority of developers. As a plan B, I'd suggest thinking about 2 pure 32bit and 
64bit systems, but single source and script base. Plus maybe some additional 
logic for handling this environment. More difficulties here, but less 
difficulties in the future.

oftopp: x86 arch is not the only architecture for routers/firewalls/special 
servers. I'll be happy to see DL on arm some day. The "stackable" build 
environment could simplify that.

>
> Do you know if there is any issues compiling DL (1.4 or 32bit) on a
> 64bit host system?  I just upgraded from Ubuntu 10.04 32bit to Ubuntu
> 10.10 64bit, and I haven't tried a DL compile yet.
I use 64bit system and there is no problem. Host system are RHEL5/6 and OpenSuse.

>
>> All the tools which get compiled for DL itself would of course then be only
>> for the target platform.
>
>> One other thought I have is to potentially compile everything statically, so
>> we don’t have to worry about any libraries.
>
> It's been while since I compiled anything static, but it seems like
> the resulting binaries are a HUGE compared; we might have to switch
> from a CD to a DVD distro.  Plus it seems like the memory requirements
> of a static system may increase a lot too.
>
> I'm not a static expert, so please correct me if if I'm wrong.
I have to agree, static linking demands additional memory and disk resources. 
Overhead might be too much. However, we can calculate it - just make test 
"static" system and compare sizes..


Serge