Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 15:20:52 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <netchild@freebsd.org> To: Johannes Jost Meixner <johannes@meixner.or.at> Cc: AllanJude@freebsd.org, rene@freebsd.org, dchagin@freebsd.org, freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFH] Allan's 64bits CentOS ports Message-ID: <20150701152052.Horde.XdxXFlk6nCjUyNqwVIVyVQ9@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <55937245.3050609@meixner.or.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] Quoting Johannes Jost Meixner <johannes@meixner.or.at> (from Wed, 01 Jul 2015 07:53:25 +0300): > Allan could use some help reviewing his suite of CentOS 6.6 64bit ports. > > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1746 I had a quick look at comments on the top of the page and the diffs of bsd.linux-apps.mk and bsd.port.mk. What I'm missing here (I may have overlooked it, it's the first time I have a look at reviews.freebsd.org) is a short explanation for the rationale of the design decissions (see my questions below). The very first questions which come to my mind are: - Why is this embeded into the existing ports instead of having it as seperate ports? - Would seperate 64bit ports make the infrastructure less convoluted/complicated (KISS)? Yes, more ports, but the Mk infrsatructure is already at a complexity level where not much people are willing to touch it, and with this I fear it will be just too much. - Can I install 64bit and 32bit in parallel with this approach (I have to admit, it depends if the 64bit linuxulator is going to a different or the same /compat/linux directory but I haven't checked that, and it depends on how centos is build in this regard, so no idea if this makes sense)? - Is it a good idea to play around with the portname here (ok, this fits into the first question)? My concern here is that some ports played around with the port name in the past and got slowly converted to something without the name-mangling because we learned that it was not a good idea. Apart from that I have to admin that I don't like that OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE_PORT is used to check for 32bit or 64bit installs of the linux base. IMO it makes more sense to have a sort of "I want to have a XXbit linuxulator" variable: would be more end-user friendly and better self-explaining code (related to KISS). > What I'd like to see is, moving the Mk/ infrastructure to the point > where it can support future, upcoming architectures -- think CentOS 7, > recent Fedora version (only the ones that are supported for more than > 6 months), etc. > > I saw a working port of CentOS7 on GitHub, and a working Port of > Fedora 19 somewhere... but I don't recall the links. Check Can someone dig out the link for the CentOS7 port? 24th to 26th there is the DevSummit in Essen/Germany and I thought about the possibility to have a look at CentOS7 ports (if I don't find something less painful to work on) and it doesn't make sense to re-invent the wheel. Bye, Alexander. -- http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander@Leidinger.net: PGP 0xC773696B3BAC17DC http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild@FreeBSD.org : PGP 0xC773696B3BAC17DC [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAABCAAGBQJVk+k0AAoJEDPaGvaaHuONJkcP/107IZyzAaSDGd+P6fDL1PaL DXSu+OygGsFMXgv5kugQlemeSHUx2vAOelpJd8NsbmZmEVawolhvSccPlbzgW3Vl rl6kqLLstz8U0RRSdAXUiX7IZb1oNyzguVtuQfB0qVX+xp2sZDaFLFrtCoOioNZe NUDhAXgBDRRa4id7oTep7AzIUhf9Mj8e3pLockDaTnb9fdk3jhzKB6YGZHnSXpZh jEaodvYmxvqCJoIlK70fmON1xWZpN+IzMfYYdQFMOk4lemejcPW1bjFMZ+k95pLN ARWIjc9RZ5jqLEme8i23lRTjcZYmUkZC4s3Mpz0eQg0aw0v5cTI9SjHgE6Z1RccS lG+IwMlRtTV8jHXDazWHl7JA512iwM76GsUo2OVJ3u7JujT66tpwio1oKXz241Gn JiL9G18GCSLkyqtoHNHaZg7hAaIXr1D9K5eYSros0aNH5B8leAM7ODy6ZZdB/Xnh UJrEdhrY7ITAxGD8i+pztlud+tTcLsHIelbX9QVdSQ/+BA0ntKaZot6G4DD3RI/d IgM6ZWGUWCX8pPXpJft73GgS5fxqni+Szj5+uLLH5eGUjj+WiVq9YkdaiVKG7Rah AckHuSPVg8rTUGBGMRX5AsU8ebBB5mn12RgKgvOaiSFUJIptwtEpxoPyj9Tq3EH1 Bnx9mjaXS3sRYkL5n7kf =cC4z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150701152052.Horde.XdxXFlk6nCjUyNqwVIVyVQ9>