Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

rebol 3 => 64 Bit problems

 [1/11] from: tim-johnsons::web::com at: 11-Feb-2009 15:16


Hi Mario: I'm Cc'ing this reply to the rebol mailing list, because frankly, the lack of concern showed regarding this issue is disturbing and the rebol community should have this stuck in their face...... On Wednesday 11 February 2009, you wrote:
> I've followed your description of running the Rebol on 64-bit Linux, > but couldn't make it happen due to my insufficient understanding.
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> > and made copies of the shared objects with those name changes, ported all > > to the ubuntu machine and I have rebol running.
You can try getting a copy of 32-bit libm.so.6, renaming it to l1bm.so.6 and putting in the same directory (presumable /lib) - then do the same for libc.so.6 and ld-l1nux.so.2. So now you have /l1bm.so.6, /l1bc.so.6, ld-l1nux.so.2 Does that make it clearer.
> I did correct the paths using the vim -b mode, but then I didn't > understand the shared objects and porting. Anyway, the question I have > is whether it is possible to have a Rebol 276 running on a Debian > 64-bit (Lenny) platform and how can I achieve this?
I ended up going back to 32-bit ubuntu. I had more problems than just with rebol. Even if you get this working, you may still have dns problems. IOWS: You might not be able to do read http://www.rebol.com but you would have to do read http://205.134.252.23
> I also tried to > use the Alpha version of it R3, but I guess it's the same problem. The > last option for me is to downgrade the system to 32-bit.
And that's even more disturbing. Sorry to sound so grouchy here - I'm not usually this way, but I think that this is an issue being swept under a rug and it won't go away, it could really cause a major public relations disaster for RT. Let me know how it goes. Please continue to CC to the ML so that this issue becomes better know. tj

 [2/11] from: andreas::bolka::gmx::net at: 12-Feb-2009 13:05


Excerpts from Tim Johnson's message of Thu Feb 12 01:16:50 +0100 2009:
> I'm Cc'ing this reply to the rebol mailing list, because frankly, the > lack of concern showed regarding this issue is disturbing and the > rebol community should have this stuck in their face
What issue? I couldn't extract from your posting, what's the problem here. -- Andreas Bolka

 [3/11] from: henrikmk:g:mail at: 12-Feb-2009 16:49


On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Tim Johnson <tim-johnsons-web.com> wrote:
> And that's even more disturbing. Sorry to sound so grouchy here - I'm > not usually this way, but I think that this is an issue being swept under
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> issue becomes better know. > tj
The issue has been well known to RT for years: Linux is the hardest OS to support due to its very non-standardized nature. There are constant kernel and library changes. But RT usually asks regularly what people use the most, and then compile versions of REBOL to that Linux variant. The question was in fact asked again a few days ago, when the R3 version was going to be built. The answer was Ubuntu and an Ubuntu version was built. Carl doesn't wish to spend his time compiling for various Linux distros, so we would need package maintainers for each respective OS here. But if there is significant demand for a particular Linux version now, I'm sure Carl will build it. -- Regards, Henrik Mikael Kristensen

 [4/11] from: brian:wisti::gmail at: 12-Feb-2009 8:35


On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Henrik Mikael Kristensen < henrikmk-gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Tim Johnson <tim-johnsons-web.com> wrote: > > And that's even more disturbing. Sorry to sound so grouchy here - I'm
<<quoted lines omitted: 17>>
> here. But if there is significant demand for a particular Linux > version now, I'm sure Carl will build it.
I guess that's part of the charm of the open source approach. Perl, Python, Ruby, and scads of other languages are available for every distribution I've come across. Some of that has to be due to the fact that if somebody wants Ruby on their platform, it's their responsibility to build it and submit patches for what worked. Language developers are free to focus on the details of developing the language itself. I know that Carl owns REBOL and has done a great job creating it, but his meticulous approach may present the primary bottleneck for wider adoption of the platform. As awesome as he is, he's only one person, and what we can get is limited to what he can figure out how to build. I haven't been following the development of R3 as closely as other languages because it's impractical to get an EXE working on my Ubuntu laptop and my old PPC iMac. I'm not much of a low-level code hacker, but it sure would be fun to see if I could checkout the latest commits from the trunk and try to build it myself. Some variation of this has been said many times before, so I want to make it clear that this isn't any sort of call to arms. Carl is free to develop the platform he owns in whatever way he sees fit, of course. I'll continue using R2 when it's appropriate for my projects and when R3 builds for my platforms start showing up on the R3 Releases page I will eagerly grab them and start poking. I'm just saying that I enjoy the additional opportunities presented by having code readily available. And that I think all these platform issues are making Carl work too hard on things that aren't important to the core of the language - like making a build for 64 bit Debian. All right, back to work for me. Kind Regards, Brian Wisti http://coolnamehere.com/

 [5/11] from: tim-johnsons:web at: 12-Feb-2009 8:02


On Thursday 12 February 2009, Henrik Mikael Kristensen wrote:
> The issue has been well known to RT for years: Linux is the hardest OS > to support due to its very non-standardized nature. There are constant
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> R3 version was going to be built. The answer was Ubuntu and an Ubuntu > version was built.
We've never had such problems with python or perl. We have never had to build perl or python on our machines. Although I have built newlisp. Thusly, I believe you are overstating the variance among linx distros. It has been a long time since I programmed in C and had to compile, but I believe a strategy for more flexible loading or static linking exists. Furthermore rebol 2 should be compiled for 64-bit. The year I started coding for compensation - 1989 - was the year of the Ashton-Tate dBase fiasco. And I was programming in dBaseIII+ and dBaseIV. I quote from the Wikipedia entry: "a focus on future products without addressing the needs of the current customers." There's a cautionary tale there. I am glad that you are building for ubuntu. You should take great effort to ensure that rebol is in the repositories and that it includes a nice application of some sort. I would like to test such a build. If you are part of the development team did you see my email of Saturday 07 February 2009, subject "Re: Inside R3's developement..."? I am very concerned that no one replied to my problem there. Rebol has served me, my company and my customers very well for 9 years. It is a pleasure to work with and at least 50% more productive than python or perl in small, single-programmer projects. Even tho' I use it as the critical part of my productivity and production tools, I've stop doing any development for customers until a mature rebol with 64-bit compatibility is available. A 64-bit rebol 2 should have been built long ago. If but a few server farms start converting to 64-bit and rebol binaries become inoperable, there will be such a stink that rebol3 will never overcome. I hate to be the contrarian here, but what I say needs to be said. And this is all I have to say on the subject. However, I hope this issue stays on the front of everyone's minds, including windows users. Regards Tim

 [6/11] from: petr:krenzelok:seznam:cz at: 12-Feb-2009 18:08


Brian, I have some explanation for you, because imo it is important to understand the architecture, and not eventually spread incorrect information: If you would properly watch R3 development during last 2 - 3 years, you would probably know, what the intended model is going to be like? I mean - it was discussed several times on various places, that most of R3 is going to be opensourced. The only thing with closed source nature is going to be rebol.dll (rebol.so) library, which is supposed to be platform agnostic. But - to get there, we first need DevBase running, and imo we are now very close to that state. RebDev (which is going to be renamed to DevBase later) needs some additions like file-sharing etc., and then C source codes for host (OS) parts are going to be uploaded. So yes, you will be able to build your own R3 distro, we are just not there. Of course, you will need Carl to recompile rebol.dll (.so) for your target platform, but as it is supposed to be platform agnostic, it should not be of a big problem. Recent R3 linux/OS-X builds are just attempt to try to port R3, nothing more, no official effort, just for testing purposes. So - let's wait few more months, and we will get there. And then - R3 for everyone :-) I surely want my R3 for Windows Mobile (HTC Touch Diamond is my next phone :-) Best regards, -pekr-

 [7/11] from: henrikmk:gmai:l at: 12-Feb-2009 18:23


On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 6:02 PM, Tim Johnson <tim-johnsons-web.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 12 February 2009, Henrik Mikael Kristensen wrote: >> The issue has been well known to RT for years: Linux is the hardest OS
<<quoted lines omitted: 7>>
> build perl or python on our machines. Although I have built newlisp. > Thusly, I believe you are overstating the variance among linx distros.
I'm sure Carl will love some advice on that, but if it involves support for a large number of libraries by ballooning the R3 distribution to several megabytes, then Carl will not do it. It has to be done on his terms and he's very adamant on that. We need to find a solution.
> It has been a long time since I programmed in C and had to compile, but > I believe a strategy for more flexible loading or static linking exists.
<<quoted lines omitted: 8>>
> to ensure that rebol is in the repositories and that it includes a nice > application of some sort. I would like to test such a build.
As said, we need a package maintainer for going through "proper channels" on a Linux distribution. If one can be found, then I think RT will take advantage of him.
> If you are part of the development team did you see my email of > Saturday 07 February 2009, subject "Re: Inside R3's developement..."? > I am very concerned that no one replied to my problem there.
Only Carl has access to the C code and he's the one who decides which versions get built. I'm checking that mail now...
> Rebol has served me, my company and my customers very well for > 9 years. It is a pleasure to work with and at least 50% more productive
<<quoted lines omitted: 9>>
> However, I hope this issue stays on the front of everyone's minds, > including windows users.
I agree that we should have 64 bit support, but again: If no one tells RT *directly* that a significant portion of Linux users can't use REBOL due to some incompatibility that requires building a new version, then nothing will happen. Specific versions have been built before and I'm sure it will happen again. I will bring this issue to Carl's attention. -- Regards, Henrik Mikael Kristensen

 [8/11] from: brian:wisti::gmail at: 12-Feb-2009 10:07


On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:08 AM, Petr Krenzelok <petr.krenzelok-seznam.cz>wrote:
> Brian, I have some explanation for you, because imo it is important to > understand the architecture, and not eventually spread incorrect
<<quoted lines omitted: 18>>
> Best regards, > -pekr-
Thanks for the summary, pekr. I knew this issue had been discussed at great length in the past, but like I said - I haven't been paying close attention to R3 development at all. That's why my email had such a mild tone :-) I'm definitely looking forward to R3 for everyone. Kind Regards, Brian Wisti http://coolnamehere.com/

 [9/11] from: tim-johnsons:web at: 12-Feb-2009 10:48


On Thursday 12 February 2009, Henrik Mikael Kristensen wrote:
> As said, we need a package maintainer for going through "proper > channels" on a Linux distribution. If one can be found, then I think > RT will take advantage of him.
:-) All one can do is look ....... Some approaches might be: 1)Understand the branches of the various main linux distributions: I.E. Slackware, Red Hat, Mandriva, Suse, and Debian. a)Slackware - as far as I know - has _one_ developer - Volkerding (sp?) b)Debian derivations seem to be the fastest growing. I believe that at some repositories are shared. RT's decision not to be open source is making it harder - see the explosion of usage of PHP as an alternative _but_ something to consider, is there a hybrid licensing scheme that might work for RT's distribution? I know that cost is a consideration, but another source might be to seek some adhoc consultation from somebody like a network/cross-platform tech from a company like AttachMate. -- tj

 [10/11] from: andreas:bolka:gmx at: 12-Feb-2009 21:48


Excerpts from Tim Johnson's message of Thu Feb 12 18:02:56 +0100 2009:
> A 64-bit rebol 2 should have been built long ago. If but a few server > farms start converting to 64-bit and rebol binaries become inoperable, > there will be such a stink that rebol3 will never overcome.
I have REBOL 2 running on several 64-bit machines: $ uname -m x86_64 $ file `which rebol` /usr/local/bin/rebol: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), for GNU/Linux 2.6.9, dynamically linked (uses shared libs), stripped $ rebol -qw --do 'print system/version' 2.7.6.4.2 So I don't really see what's becoming "inoperable" here? Neither Linux nor Windows has any troubles running "legacy" 32-bit executables on 64-bit systems, if necessary. On some Linux systems, you have to take some care (e.g. make sure the "ia32-libs" package is installed on Ubuntu), but generally that's not an issue. -- Regards, Andreas

 [11/11] from: tim-johnsons::web::com at: 12-Feb-2009 13:10


On Thursday 12 February 2009, Andreas Bolka wrote:
> Excerpts from Tim Johnson's message of Thu Feb 12 18:02:56 +0100 2009: > > A 64-bit rebol 2 should have been built long ago. If but a few server
<<quoted lines omitted: 14>>
> some care (e.g. make sure the "ia32-libs" package is installed on > Ubuntu), but generally that's not an issue.
Rebol certainly was inoperable on my 64-bit kubuntu. I do believe that I looked at ia32-libs but don't remember and can't reproduce, since I went back to 32-bit OS. It would be interesting to see what Mario has to say about your advice. That's really not the point though. Rebol should take this on proactively, and publish a solution. That might even give rebol an edge on others. Tim

Notes
  • Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
    View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted