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.Received on Tue Sep 18 09:57:35 2001
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:05 EST