Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:27:40 -0500 From: Ken Stailey <kstailey@surfbest.net> To: Alan Eldridge <alane@geeksrus.net> Cc: klh@panix.com, petef@freebsd.org, portmgr@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Ports List <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: complete pkg-descr files for klh-10 and its Message-ID: <3C6D36FC.6010801@surfbest.net> References: <3C6D2443.2070201@surfbest.net> <20020215152218.GA53862@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> <3C6D2E51.8090403@surfbest.net> <20020215155946.GA54173@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> <3C6D32A7.50003@surfbest.net> <20020215161655.GA54470@wwweasel.geeksrus.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alan Eldridge wrote: >On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 11:09:11AM -0500, Ken Stailey wrote: > >>Alan Eldridge wrote: >> >>>On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 10:50:41AM -0500, Ken Stailey wrote: >>> >>>>Alan Eldridge wrote: >>>> >>>I recommend against a default under /usr in general, but, if pressed, it >>>could go under /usr/local/share/its. I copied portmgr@ in order to get >>>suggestions for this. >>> >>Doesn't share imply architecture-independant? Why would an i386 binary >>go under share? games sounds like a better place to put it: >> > >No, for the its disk image. > Trouble is without patches to the emulator .ini files the disk image and emulator must both be in the $KLH_HOME directory. I suppose I could write them. Where to put klh-10 binary if PI disk image is in local/share? It should be a private directory because the binary requires many configuration files to be in place along with it. Perhaps a symlink from the $KLH_HOME with the binary to the PI disk image would be an easy work around instead of patches for the .ini files. > >>>>>If it isn't a per user install, then locking needs to be in place to make >>>>>sure no more than one copy of klh10 is running. >>>>> >>>I don't think there's a way around this. It can be invoked with the >>>lockf(1) >>>command to make this easy. A wrapper script would be needed to do this. >>> >>Your thinking goes against the grain of this port. >> >No, it agrees with it. > >>The emulator is a timesharing system. Please read Steve Levy's Hackers book. >> > >I did. When it first came out in 1984(?). (I was designing >videodisc-based PC-multimedia POS systems at the time. Did you know >that programmable videodisc players from Pioneer had a Forth >interpreter in them?) > >>Why on >>earth would you run multple separate copies of a timesharing system? >> > >You wouldn't. I'm trying to enforce this. > I wonder if klh-10 has anything already in place to deal with this. Kenneth would know off the top of his head I bet. > > >>There should be one shared instance of klh-10 on one node to preserve >>historical approach to timesharing and prevent squandering host CPU and >>disk resources. >> > >See previous comment. If you don't enforce it, running two copies could >trash your disk image. > >>>And speaking of packages, its needs to be marked NO_CDROM. It's just too >>>big. >>> NO_WRKSUBDIR= yes NO_BUILD= yes NO_PACKAGE= PI disk image is too big. NO_CDROM= PI disk image is too big. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C6D36FC.6010801>