Linux binaries

 
Dear Linux hackers,

Does anyone have experience with making binary releases for 32-bit  
Linux that are compiled on a 64-bit system with -m32?  My Linux  
development machine runs 64-bit Linux and it would be convenient to  
package 32-bit Linux VM binaries on that machine rather than remotely,  
or worse after rebooting into a 32-bit kernel.  Any information or  
opinions, for or against, would be gratefully received!

If anyone wants to play spot-the-difference:

   http://squeakvm.org/unix/release/Squeak-4.0.2.2181- 
linux_i386-1.tar.gz
   http://squeakvm.org/unix/release/Squeak-4.0.2.2181- 
linux_i386-2.tar.gz

One of these was compiled on a 32-bit system, the other on a 64-bit  
system.  (I already know they have slightly different collections of  
plugins. :)  My 32-bit machine happily runs either.

Cheers,
Ian

 
Hey Ian,

haven't done packaging before, but I have to support multiple versions of Linux for 64 and 32 bit. The way I do it is to install s chroot environment for each combination.
My desktop is a 64bit AMD Debian and the projects I compile are for 32 and 64 SuSe, multiple service packs and versions. Never had a problem with that.

The biggest hurdle is usually to setup the basic chroot system so you can chroot into it and load Linux packages from within the root environment. Depending on your Linux distribution it might be provided for you (if you use Debian, debootstrap is your friend).

Hope this helps,
Markus




----- Original Message ----
Dear Linux hackers,

Does anyone have experience with making binary
> releases for 32-bit Linux that are compiled on a 64-bit system with -m32?  
> My Linux development machine runs 64-bit Linux and it would be convenient to
> package 32-bit Linux VM binaries on that machine rather than remotely, or worse
> after rebooting into a 32-bit kernel.  Any information or opinions, for or
> against, would be gratefully received!

If anyone wants to play
> spot-the-difference:

 
> href="http://squeakvm.org/unix/release/Squeak-4.0.2.2181-linux_i386-1.tar.gz"
> target=_blank
> >http://squeakvm.org/unix/release/Squeak-4.0.2.2181-linux_i386-1.tar.gz
 
>
> target=_blank
> >http://squeakvm.org/unix/release/Squeak-4.0.2.2181-linux_i386-2.tar.gz

One
> of these was compiled on a 32-bit system, the other on a 64-bit system.  (I
> already know they have slightly different collections of plugins. :)  My
> 32-bit machine happily runs either.

Cheers,
Ian

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 

 
On Saturday 10 April 2010 06:43:52 am Ian Piumarta wrote:
> My Linux  
> development machine runs 64-bit Linux and it would be convenient to  
> package 32-bit Linux VM binaries on that machine rather than remotely,  
> or worse after rebooting into a 32-bit kernel.  Any information or  
> opinions, for or against, would be gratefully received!
One option is to use kvm and virtual image to do the build and run smoke test
across different distros. If you use a slightly older distro instead of the
latest one to do your build, it will run on many more machines out there.

4GB should be sufficient to hold most distros with build tools. You can always
knock off the big hog - openoffice - to trim it down further.

Subbu

 
Hi Ian,

 
Hi Laurent,

On Apr 11, 2010, at 12:20 PM, laurent laffont wrote:

> - which gcc version you use
> - which CFLAGS option for configure script

>  http://squeakvm.org/unix/release/Squeak-4.0.2.2181- 
> linux_i386-1.tar.gz

gcc 4.3.4

>  http://squeakvm.org/unix/release/Squeak-4.0.2.2181- 
> linux_i386-2.tar.gz

gcc 4.3.2

Both use the default flags for i386, which are: -g -O2 -fomit-frame-
pointer

Cheers,
Ian

 
On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 18:13 -0700, Ian Piumarta wrote:
> Dear Linux hackers,
>
> Does anyone have experience with making binary releases for 32-bit  
> Linux that are compiled on a 64-bit system with -m32?  My Linux  
> development machine runs 64-bit Linux and it would be convenient to  
> package 32-bit Linux VM binaries on that machine rather than remotely,  
> or worse after rebooting into a 32-bit kernel.  Any information or  
> opinions, for or against, would be gratefully received!

I've been running a 64 bit linux building and debugging 32 bit VMs for a
few years now. I build them in a 32 bit chroot jail, so there's no
reason to reboot to compile or test them.

Bryce

 
Hi Markus, Bryce,

Thanks for the suggestions.

The interesting question is whether gcc -m32 really does build  
binaries that are 100% compatible and dependable when running on 32-
bit hardware.  That's clearly the intention of the multilib stuff.  I  
was curious to know if anyone has proved its reliability for building  
a "real" binary distribution.

I've always had excellent results with debootstrap, in genuine  
installs and in chroot environments.  Last time I tried it on Ubuntu I  
ran into connection problems with X from within the chroot and gave up  
after an hour or two of fiddling.  So...

Rather than make a chroot I'm doing the next easiest thing to -m32:  
building remotely on a Debian stable system.  (Dave: this is why your  
old libc is making squeak happy again. :)

Cheers,
Ian

 
Hi Subbu,

> One option is to use kvm and virtual image to do the build and run  
> smoke test
> across different distros. If you use a slightly older distro instead  
> of the
> latest one to do your build, it will run on many more machines out  
> there.

Thanks for the suggestion.  I've been using kvm to run Solaris, NetBSD  
and FreeBSD for checking portability and building binaries.  I have a  
remote 32-bit Debian box that can build for Linux, so apart from the  
slightly better bandwidth I'd get to the kvm machine the easier  
solution is to use the real hardware.

After some Googling I still haven't found any unambiguous reports of  
whether -m32 is robust for making binary distributions.  Plenty of  
stories about compiling with it; nothing about customer satisfaction  
after shipping binaries built with it.

Cheers,
Ian