From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 11 17:25:01 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FB8F16A7A5 for ; Thu, 11 May 2006 17:25:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsam@ipt.ru) Received: from mail.ipt.ru (mail.ipt.ru [80.253.10.82]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5874A43D76 for ; Thu, 11 May 2006 17:25:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bsam@ipt.ru) Received: from admin.sem.ipt.ru ([192.168.12.1] helo=srv.sem.ipt.ru) by mail.ipt.ru with esmtp (Exim 4.54 (FreeBSD)) id 1FeEuJ-000DPX-3W; Thu, 11 May 2006 21:24:59 +0400 Received: from bsam by srv.sem.ipt.ru with local (Exim 4.61 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1FeEuc-000Cv6-Fz; Thu, 11 May 2006 21:25:18 +0400 To: Frank Laszlo References: <00bd01c6750a$b7c631e0$0a1610ac@prodcave.com> <4463603F.3050600@vonostingroup.com> <39169750@srv.sem.ipt.ru> <44636F83.8020103@vonostingroup.com> From: Boris Samorodov Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 21:25:18 +0400 In-Reply-To: <44636F83.8020103@vonostingroup.com> (Frank Laszlo's message of "Thu, 11 May 2006 13:08:19 -0400") Message-ID: <73088465@srv.sem.ipt.ru> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: tomcat55 port on AMD64 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 17:25:07 -0000 On Thu, 11 May 2006 13:08:19 -0400 Frank Laszlo wrote: > Boris Samorodov wrote: > > On Thu, 11 May 2006 12:03:11 -0400 Frank Laszlo wrote: > > > >> I submitted a patch[1] to fix this issue some time ago, It has to do > >> with the way linux ports handle ARCH, since the linux emulation port > >> doesn't work on amd64, its forced to use i386 rpm's. Unfortunately my > >> efforts were shun by a brick wall, and no changes were made to address > >> this. I am going to repeat this one more time, ARCH should NEVER be > >> overwritten, here is yet another example of why. > > > >> [1]http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/91911 > > > > Seems that this problem shouldn't exist since updating of the port to > > use new bsd.linux-rpm.mk. > > > You would think so, but the fact of the matter is, ARCH should be a > READONLY variable. It is relied upon heavily in the ports framework and > shouldn't be changed, ever. Why we don't just use another variable name > to do the trickery is what I am wondering. Argh, yes. You are right. It do have problems with current default port linux_base-8. I'm using linux_base-fc3 for a long time and get used to it too much. WBR -- Boris B. Samorodov, Research Engineer InPharmTech Co, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone & Internet Service Provider