From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 18 20:11:02 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B33E1065676 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:11:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsam@ipt.ru) Received: from services.ipt.ru (services.ipt.ru [194.62.233.110]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7AE78FC1A for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:11:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [85.173.16.144] (helo=izar) by services.ipt.ru with esmtpa (Exim 4.54 (FreeBSD)) id 1Mzc5k-000D9R-JB; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:11:00 +0400 To: Juergen Lock References: <20091017154404.GA80599@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <99413628@ipt.ru> <20091018174157.GB99191@triton8.kn-bremen.de> From: Boris Samorodov Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 00:13:20 +0400 In-Reply-To: <20091018174157.GB99191@triton8.kn-bremen.de> (Juergen Lock's message of "Sun\, 18 Oct 2009 19\:41\:57 +0200") Message-ID: <99401887@ipt.ru> User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: how to test for linux base version? (googleearth) X-BeenThere: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Emulators of other operating systems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:11:02 -0000 Juergen Lock writes: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 02:30:43PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote: >> Juergen Lock writes: >> >> > I just got reminded to add a linux base version check to astro/google-earth >> > (It now needs recent linux libstdc++.so.6 with GLIBCXX_3.4.9 that only >> > is in f9 or f10, you can do >> >> First of, I'd recommend leaving f9 alone (I'm going to deprecate all >> linux base ports except fc4 and f10 soon). >> > Ah Ok. (Does f10 work well enough on 7.x yet?) Well, there is no choice anyway. We do have fc4 and f10 infractructure ports. I think it's wise to use apropriate base ports. I don't think there is any difference between f9 and f10 linux base ports. If someone shows a difference (i.e. possibility to use f9 but not f10 linux base port under 7.x I may change my mind). >> > objdump -T /compat/linux/usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6 |grep 'ABS.*GLIBCXX' >> > to check) - and was wondering how to best check for that in a port. >> > This is what I came up with so far: >> > >> > Index: Makefile >> > =================================================================== >> > RCS file: /home/pcvs/ports/astro/google-earth/Makefile,v >> > retrieving revision 1.35 >> > diff -u -p -r1.35 Makefile >> > --- Makefile 24 Sep 2009 21:01:36 -0000 1.35 >> > +++ Makefile 17 Oct 2009 15:32:22 -0000 >> > @@ -38,6 +38,14 @@ RUN_DEPENDS+= ${LINUXBASE}/usr/lib/libGL >> > USE_LINUX_APPS+= dri >> > .endif >> > >> > +.if (${OSVERSION} < 800076 && \ >> > + !defined(OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE_PORT)) || \ >> > + (defined(OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE_PORT) && \ >> > + !(${OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE_PORT} == f10) || \ >> > + ${OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE_PORT} == f9) >> > +IGNORE= needs at least f9 Linux base >> > +.endif >> > + >> > do-extract: >> > @${MKDIR} ${WRKSRC} >> > @${CP} ${DISTDIR}/${DIST_SUBDIR}/${DISTFILES} ${WRKSRC} >> > >> > Anyone have a better idea? :) >> >> I'm not sure if it's better but just an other idea: >> ----- >> .if ${OSVERSION}<7000XX /*** XX should be find out ***/ >> IGNORE FreeBSD>=7.X is needed with Linux emulation 2.6.x. >> .elif ${OSVERSION}<800076 && \ >> ! defined (OVERRIDE_LINUX_NONBASE_PORTS) || >> ! (${OVERRIDE_LINUX_NONBASE_PORTS} == f10) >> IGNORE= you need to use non-default linux ports (define OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE_PORT=f10 and OVERRIDE_LINUX_NONBASE_PORTS=f10) >> .endif >> ----- > > In the meantime I found emulators/linux-systemsimcell does something > similar, and it uses ${OSVERSION}<700055 for the first check. Does > that look alright? (seems to be the last OSVERSION before 7.0-R from > looking at > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/book.html#FREEBSD-VERSIONS > ) We discussed those checks with the maintainer and his checks were good (for his software). I can't say more than that, sorry. -- WBR, bsam