From owner-svn-src-all@freebsd.org Mon Nov 2 22:32:24 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0CB445CF1D; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 22:32:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from kib.kiev.ua (kib.kiev.ua [IPv6:2001:470:d5e7:1::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CQ72Z59Zqz46GF; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 22:32:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from tom.home (kib@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kib.kiev.ua (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 0A2MWEfj090685 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Nov 2020 00:32:17 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 kib.kiev.ua 0A2MWEfj090685 Received: (from kostik@localhost) by tom.home (8.16.1/8.16.1/Submit) id 0A2MWEnV090684; Tue, 3 Nov 2020 00:32:14 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: tom.home: kostik set sender to kostikbel@gmail.com using -f Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2020 00:32:14 +0200 From: Konstantin Belousov To: Emmanuel Vadot Cc: Stefan Esser , src-committers , svn-src-all , svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r367280 - head/lib/libc/gen Message-ID: <20201102223214.GO2654@kib.kiev.ua> References: <202011021848.0A2Im7Kx098921@repo.freebsd.org> <338fdfbb-6fad-0e44-5df6-b5a1c38d3e4f@freebsd.org> <20201102224907.401c9200dffba42cab827b2d@bidouilliste.com> <20201102221039.GN2654@kib.kiev.ua> <20201102232215.3ae253e0478791a3261d1dd1@bidouilliste.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201102232215.3ae253e0478791a3261d1dd1@bidouilliste.com> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,FREEMAIL_FROM, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on tom.home X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4CQ72Z59Zqz46GF X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); spf=softfail (mx1.freebsd.org: 2001:470:d5e7:1::1 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of kostikbel@gmail.com) smtp.mailfrom=kostikbel@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.31 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[gmail.com : No valid SPF, No valid DKIM,none]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.03)[-0.026]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.34)[-0.337]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; R_SPF_SOFTFAIL(0.00)[~all]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.06)[0.055]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:6939, ipnet:2001:470::/32, country:US]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[svn-src-all,svn-src-head]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 22:32:25 -0000 On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 11:22:15PM +0100, Emmanuel Vadot wrote: > On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 00:10:39 +0200 > Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 10:49:07PM +0100, Emmanuel Vadot wrote: > > > I think that the first question we want to ask is : Do we want to > > > support LOCALBASE being different than /usr/local > > > I honestly don't see any advantages of making it !=/usr/local/ and > > > before we start putting a lot of new/useless(for I guess 99% of our > > > user base) in the tree we should here why people are using /usr/pkg or > > > whatever weird location. > > > If they have some good argument, then we should proceed further. > > > > I would be delighted to be able to install _and use_ two independent > > set of packages from the same base system install. Without recursing > > to jails, X forwarding, etc. > > > > In fact I would like to use /usr/local and e.g /usr/local-i386 on amd64 > > machine. I am fine with me building both of them in my instance of > > poudriere. > > > > But indeed I am not sure if this worth the effort of many people, for many > > hours. If it puts too high burden on everybody, then it is not a good > > feature. Otherwise, it is very convenient in some situations. > > I understand this situation but I think that the best way for you do > do that is to use pkg install -r /path/to/my/i386/packages > > Since you will need to tweak you PATH variable to start applications > installed in /usr/local-i386 anyway it's not too much to tweak that to > the pkg path for your i386 repo. > > The "downside" of using this method is that you will have > a /usr/local/ under the /path/to/my/i386/packages. > The "upside" of using this method is that you would be able to use the > same i386 packages on a native i386 install and they would install > in /usr/local/ (so no tweaking here). If I can already use them from non-/usr/local prefix, then it is great news (for me). But I have a reason to doubt. For instance, a lot of applications are configured at build time to look for /usr/local. Like, gcc with /usr/local/lib/gcc/, and binutils, which are actually one of the main use case for me. So I believe that pkg install -r requires chroot/jail for the result to work.