Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 09:24:38 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org> Cc: FreeBSD-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: problems with linux ports Message-ID: <20071121092438.ihob6n73ggwkkg0w@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <4743A6C1.2060106@chuckr.org> References: <4743A6C1.2060106@chuckr.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org> (from Tue, 20 Nov 2007 =20 22:32:17 -0500): > I sam working to try getting a current flash working, and I found > something that seems screwy. I've had pr0blems with the way that ports > do/don't respect LOCALBASE/X11BASE so far, and while I guess I was > wrong, I think I would ask someone else to check this ... the > www/linux-firefox-devel (and probably the linux-firefox) ports sticks > its large selection of shared libs intoa subdir named firefox-devel, > but instead of this going into /usr/compat/linux/usr/lib like I was > expecting, its being stuck into /usr/local/lib. The files aren't bsd > llibs, they're SYSV libs, so i dono't think that the linux ldconfig > should go hunting over there. And ldconfig will not hunt there, as it has to be run chrooted to =20 LINUXBASE (linux ldconfig can chroot himself). > I think it's installing in the wrong spot. So I can continue with my > work on the Adobe stuff, I'm going to fix my stuff here anyhow. Let me > know if I'm right, ok? I'd file the PR if you wanted, I just want > someone to verify this as wrong. Firefox is special, and linux emulation is special too, so the end =20 result is extra special. Firefox will look by himself into those directories, no need to ldconfig the= m. For the linux ports I suggest to not rely on your old knowledge about =20 it. I've redesigned the behavior a little bit (e.g., there's a fall =20 through to some FreeBSD config files by either symlinking to the right =20 path, or by a direct "fall trough: to the FreeBSD files). In general, infrastructure ports should go to LINUXBASE, and =20 application ports to LOCALBASE (we don't really have X11BASE in the =20 ports anymore since some months). If an application does install =20 generic infrastructure things, it should be split up so that it fits =20 the above description. If this is not possible (or too hard), we need =20 to find another solution. If it doesn't conflict with native ports =20 (for example if the infrastructure can not be used in general, as it =20 is not pick up by e.g. the native gcc or run time linker), we can =20 install it in LOCALBASE. A cleaner solution would be to put it into =20 LINUXBASE and install just a wrapper script into LOCALBASE which calls =20 the /comapt/linux/... binary. This is up to the port maintainer (he =20 can put a CONFLICTS line into the port), and maybe general consensus. =20 I haven't looked at the linux-firefox* ports, so I can't tell if it =20 would be an improvement to move it to LINUXBASE or not. Bye, Alexander. --=20 The answer to the question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is... =09Four day work week, =09Two ply toilet paper! http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071121092438.ihob6n73ggwkkg0w>