Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:57:25 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6vesd=E1n_G=E1bor?= <gabor.kovesdan@t-hosting.hu> To: Alexander Leidinger <netchild@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, emulators@FreeBSD.org Subject: The future of Gentoo ports Message-ID: <448937F5.4070607@t-hosting.hu>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello Alexander,
I've been thinking of your recommendation about renaming these ports and
installing them under another prefix. I agree that these are rather
complete distributions than just linux_base ports. It would be nice to
indicate that somehow, but I'd prefer keeping the opportunity to install
them into ${LINUXBASE} as I find them very useful as a linux_base as
well. For an example, we can get everything from gentoo portage. I know
we have a lot of ports, but portage may contain something that ports
doesn't and vica versa. So, we are able to use portages, but chrooting
to the environment is not necessary, we can jsut start something from
the host system that are installed in the gentoo environment, as if it
were a linux-* port from our ports collection.
My idea is to repocopy and rename these ports like:
emulators/linux_base-gentoo-stage1 -> emulators/linux_dist-gentoo-stage1
This introduces a new group of ports (linux_dist*) that are complete
linux environment for cross-development, etc. At the same time a
WITH_LINUXBASE macro should be added for installing them into
${LINUXBASE} and this requires a conditional CONFLICTS with another
linux_base ports.
If this has been accomplished, I also want to add then three metaports
as emulators/linux_base-gentoo-stage[123] for the old functionality,
this would install the ports with WITH_LINUXBASE set, but these
metaports can be set DEPRECATED without an EXPIRATION_DATE to just note
that the use of these are discouraged.
Ideas and opinions from the lists are welcome!
Cheers,
Gabor Kovesdan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?448937F5.4070607>