Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 18:45:17 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@leidinger.net> To: Allan Jude <allanjude@freebsd.org> Cc: Alexander Leidinger <netchild@freebsd.org>, Johannes Jost Meixner <johannes@meixner.or.at>, rene@freebsd.org, dchagin@freebsd.org, freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [CFH] Allan's 64bits CentOS ports Message-ID: <20150725184517.Horde.tlKBRMPENpfbZWhmyyJLURs@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:22:13 -0400 Allan Jude <allanjude@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 2015-07-01 09:20, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > 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 > > > > Sorry for being late replying to this > > > 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). > > > > Caveat #1: I have no idea what I am doing. I just poked stuff until it > worked. There were very few "design decisions" OK. > > 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? > > Cloning every linux port seemed excessive. Especially considering the > only difference in the ports is swapping i686 for x86_64 in the name > of the .rpm, and the lib path changing to lib64 > > My main goal with combining them was easing the amount of work in > maintaining the ports and keeping them up-to-date Fair enough. > > - 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. > > There isn't that much magic in the Mk stuff, other than moving a few > things that would have had to be in each separate port. After looking at the complete patch, I agree. > > - 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)? > > Not currently. I had thought about making the 64bit port install both > the 32bit and 64bit files, since the 64bit repo contains slightly > different versions of all of the 32bit .rpms that appear to have any > conflicting files removed, so are designed to be installed along side. Basically it comes down to: Are there 32bit only linux programs we want to run on the 64bit system along with 64bit linux programs? If yes, do we want to split out 64bit and 32bit, or do we decide to automatically install 32bit together with 64bit. I could life with the later option. This is not implemented in your patch, but could be added _when needed_ (given your comment that CentOS 7 is 64bit only... we may not need it). > > - 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. > > This may be true. I developed all of this in isolation, these are > maybe by 6th time working on the ports tree. I will discuss it with the ports people here at the Hackathon. > > 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). > > This was stuff that was already there, and I just added the 64bit > option to it. When I was originally developing this stuff, the default > linux_base port was not c6, so this may have been overcome by events. Based upon your comment that CentOS 7 is 64bit only, I lean towards accepting it instead of introducing a new variable. Bye, Alexander. -- http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander@Leidinger.net: PGP 0xC773696B3BAC17DC http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild@FreeBSD.org : PGP 0xC773696B3BAC17DC -- http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander@Leidinger.net: PGP 0xC773696B3BAC17DC http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild@FreeBSD.org : PGP 0xC773696B3BAC17DC
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150725184517.Horde.tlKBRMPENpfbZWhmyyJLURs>