Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:36:00 +0300 From: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: add LINUX_OSRELEASE to bsd.linux-rpm.mk Message-ID: <62336383@ipt.ru> In-Reply-To: <20080322085434.10838040@deskjail> (Alexander Leidinger's message of "Sat\, 22 Mar 2008 08\:54\:34 %2B0100") References: <07011489@ipt.ru> <20080321115227.zkcrs6rvc4c8s004@webmail.leidinger.net> <98037310@ipt.ru> <20080322085434.10838040@deskjail>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander, thanks for your feedback. On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 08:54:34 +0100 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> (Sat, 22 Mar 2008 03:56:49 +0300): > > E.g. if someone is going to install, say print/acroread7, then the > > system should detect which ports (upon which acroread depends): either > > x11-toolkits/linux-pango (current 2.4.2 port) or > > x11-toolkits/linux_k26-pango (future 2.6.16 port). > When I look at k26 somehow I feel some dislike, but as I don't have > any better idea... you chose the color. :-) Actually, that's your idea I played with: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-emulation/2008-February/004380.html Seriously, I don't like it too: . what if the next linux osrelease we will support appear to be 2.6.60? . what if we decide to have ports to support both, say, fc6 and f8/f9, etc.? . what if we decide to use some other linux distribution (not necessarily as a default) with 2.6.XX kernel? The more I think about the naming the more I return to using a linux distro name: x11-toolkits/linux-pango and x11-toolkits/linux-f8-pango . [...] > > So, the value of LINUX_OSRELEASE is used to set a value to a new > > variable LINUX_PORT_SUFFIX. Here is a proof of concept (though it > LINUX_OSRELEASE_SUFFIX sounds more intuitive for mem but if you want to > stick with LINUX_PORT_SUFFIX, it's ok for me. If we decide to use a distribution name than it may be smth like LINUX_DIST_SUFFIX. [...] > > That concept may be introduced now even before the default for > > linux.osrelease is changed. Current linux infrastructure ports > > may not be touched -- they'll work as usual. Other linux ports may be > > transferred one-by-one. And we'll get some application testing with > > new linux infrastructure ports before official annouce of the change. > > > > That path seems to be soft and quiet, with least astonishment. > I agree, this is well done. Thanks. I even like it myself. ;-) > Where do we have to introduce the *_PORT > stuff? Do we need a bsd.linux.mk, or can the bsd.linux-rpm.mk be used > for this? The strict answer may be no, but do we want to be that strict? Well, I'd prefer to use one existing file: bsd.linux-rpm.mk. If/when we use some other distro (I have some positive results with ubuntu) then may be we will have to use bsd.linux-deb.mk and split bsd.linux-rpm.mk into two files. But so far it's OK to me to use the existing one. WBR -- bsam
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?62336383>