Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:11:25 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org, Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com> Subject: Re: Linux executable picks up FreeBSD library over linux one and breaks Message-ID: <20071214171125.gffx3gbg8wos4gcc@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <4762989F.9070507@FreeBSD.org> References: <1196470143.4750af7f6accf@webmail.rawbw.com> <4752F825.8020505@chuckr.org> <20071203144159.irjelm2c0c8o8csw@webmail.leidinger.net> <47544B5A.9080903@chuckr.org> <20071205122123.phwu6uh7jksgcwk8@webmail.leidinger.net> <4760A7FE.9070409@chuckr.org> <20071213100821.bet532peog8g488s@webmail.leidinger.net> <4762989F.9070507@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org> (from Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:52:15 +0100):
> Alexander Leidinger ha scritto:
>> To achieve this goal we have 2 possibilities, either we install
>> everything into LINUXBASE and install a wrapper in LOCALBASE, or we
>> install everything in a safe location in LOCALBASE. The first part
>> requires that the maintainers of the linux program play some
>> tricks in their port (plist and/or Makfile). If they fail to do
>> this, it increases the load of portmgr from time to time (build
>> failures on the build cluster). In the second case (install into a
>> safe place in LOCALBASE), portmgr is out of the loop, as if
>> something goes wrong, the port maintainer and/or emulation@ is
>> asked for help, as it is a bug of the port.
>
> I admit that probably I'm using only one or two linux applications and
> I've never created a linux port, but I think the right way is the
> former possibility, the latter seems a hack to me. It could be harder
> for unexperienced maintainers, but once we defined the correct way to
> add a wrapper in LOCALBASE (and put it in the porter's handbook), I
> think the work for maintainers/committers should be quite easy. What
> are the other issues that make the former solution so difficult?
Multiple prefixes in one port (pkg-plist).
I know it is possible. I know that several native ports use it. I know
how the linux ports looked before I cleaned up several bad things in
most of them.
We (Boris and me) managed to refine the linux-rpm bits into a .mk
which allows more easy porting, but I know the complexity behind and
sometimes I just wonder how some linux port managed to not produce a
hell of a lot of support requests. It allows to produce nice and easy
(sort of) installation of rpms into LINUXBASE. Judging from the
quality of most of the linux ports I've seen, I think requiring
multiple prefixes in the pkg-plist calls for more problems in the
generation of linux ports.
On the other hand, if you can come up with some easy to use macros for
a .mk file which hides everything (WRAPPER_SBIN=${FILESDIR}/foobar, or
whatever), I happily review them and share my opinion about them based
upon my experience with the linux ports. Take maybe a game (one with
average porting complexity), and maybe acroread as an example which
shows how to use them
Bye,
Alexander.
--
/Earth is 98% full ... please delete anyone you can.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071214171125.gffx3gbg8wos4gcc>