Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:07:25 -0500 From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org> To: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> Cc: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HOW-TO get Flash7 working! Message-ID: <478D208D.20805@chuckr.org> In-Reply-To: <40024273@bb.ipt.ru> References: <64c038660801040516u5c42a6cpadb475ad67fb4730@mail.gmail.com> <20080104174955.52aa33fd@gumby.homeunix.com> <64c038660801041029t1a9662bayed3ca02fd46c7ece@mail.gmail.com> <64c038660801041226k1d350bc6p727e4666ea295727@mail.gmail.com> <477FFE14.1010704@monkeybrains.net> <477FFF63.50004@gmail.com> <47801D54.8050709@gmail.com> <47803E3F.2080005@monkeybrains.net> <47804901.6090007@gmail.com> <4786BF45.8030602@monkeybrains.net> <4786CEDC.3050009@chuckr.org> <20080111170711.t6wxj1bc68cgwwk4@webmail.leidinger.net> <4787E597.9040902@chuckr.org> <40077827@bb.ipt.ru> <478BC152.8060200@chuckr.org> <54285521@bb.ipt.ru> <478D0CC1.5010703@chuckr.org> <40024273@bb.ipt.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Boris Samorodov wrote: > OK, let's leave libdl an all concerned with it in the past. And > let's concentrate at port errors (ports with errors?). > >> I haven't sent any of this to emulation. I dislike crossposting without >> some truly major reason, and this thread did begin in ports. I wonder, >> does the fact that your own port installs into /compat mean that you, >> yourself, agree with my thesis, that all Linux items belong inmstalled into >> the /compat/linux tree? > > Actually, no. ;-) That means that those ports are linux infrastructure > ports which (so far noboby doubts it) belong to /compat/linux. I think I would not class it as that way ... if I had to limit it, I would make it catch all ports that install libraries. This means both what you class as "linux infrastructure" and also most things like browsers, that install rafts of libraries. It's mailing the manipulation of the LD_LIBRARY_PATH that I'm trying to avoid. I dislike having to fiddle with that on _all_ linux executables, which is required if ports can't be relied upon to put the ports in locations that linux applications expect them to be, where they are in my own Gentoo Linux box by default. Not that everything there goes into (/compat/linux)/lib or /usr/lib, but always at least some subdirectory of those, at least. > >> What is your own opinion of this? > > You know, when something goes wrong with a port and I can't repair it > myself, I do to a dortor^w kernel committer for help. If he says > "don't do it, it hurts" I do just what he says. Said that I should add > that I do it not blindly but because I see that it really (most of the > cases) helps. Yet there are open PRs which still are not closed, > workaround not found, etc. > > Nobody says that current linuxulator is ideal. I'd say that current > situation just hurts less. It is (unfortunately) very sensitive > instrument. :-( (I don't want to end the letter in a sad end, and > here is an old Russian phrase which may remind current situation: > "One wrong movement, and you are a father...") I haven't got any bone at all with our linuxulator, and I don't see anything in that which is motivating, in any way, to require libs of linux applications to go into /usr/local hierarchy instead of /compat hierarchy. I like the way our linuxulator works, please don't paint me as having any argument with it. Before I make the next point, realize that all Linux distributions I have seen put all their items into the usr tree, and not the /usr/local tree. I don't particularly like it (I rather like the way FreeBSD does it with /usr/local) but what Linux apps do is an established fact, not really open to argument. Anyway, if your infrastructure ports put items into /compat, as I want, why do you want to break with the Linux standard, and put the Linux non-infrastructure items in the /usr/local tree? Note, this is against what our own hier(7) says to do. Note again that I am really, truly, only wanting this for all libraries, it just seems more reasonable to me, if it's done for all infrastructure and all libraries, to extend it to ALL Linux items. A point I made before, but got lost, is that it nicely allows one to use chroot also, to make the environment iven more linux-like. I tried it, it worked nicely for the items that were in that tree. Doesn't work for items in /usr/local. > > WBR -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHjSCNz62J6PPcoOkRAgtpAJ9Aa1ze1nmZLqXuOWwX/jkc81/ERACgmYCk aDLIrvAeP1gR5AejK2Bl2jI= =N/5h -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?478D208D.20805>