Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 11:45:20 -0600 From: John E Hein <jhein@timing.com> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: FreeBSD-emulation <freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Missing libg2c.so.0 ? Message-ID: <17581.19504.67310.756226@gromit.timing.com> In-Reply-To: <20060706080555.4yl0qpdskgkgcsgc@netchild.homeip.net> References: <20060704190921.GA73715@graf.pompo.net> <20060705113056.zdudl6ke80g8cwck@netchild.homeip.net> <20060705162636.8slkpmxus40gcsgc@graf.pompo.net> <20060705165624.sc7c4e2hc84o4s8o@netchild.homeip.net> <20060705173036.gglfyz1les8okcsg@graf.pompo.net> <92042366@bsam.ru> <20060705170230.GB40533@graf.pompo.net> <25968985@bsam.ru> <17580.1241.631244.191605@gromit.timing.com> <20060706080555.4yl0qpdskgkgcsgc@netchild.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander Leidinger wrote at 08:05 +0200 on Jul 6, 2006: > Quoting John E Hein <jhein@timing.com> (from Wed, 5 Jul 2006 12:28:41 -0600): > > But I don't think we should put compat-* rpms in the linux base port. > > Depending on old compat libs is not very "basic". > > > > If compat libs are needed, they should probably go in a separate port > > or ports. > > > > And perhaps that port should named with "-compat-" to emphasize that > > it contains less (or not at all) actively supported packages and for > > easier searches. > > Your proposal is good. But we can't follow it in every case. For > example we already have at least one (AFAIR) compat RPM in the linux > base port. It would break some commercial stuff if we don't provide > it, and it's more convenient to have the common compat libs there. The > fortran stuff isn't that common (at least in the linux part of our > ports collection), so having a separate port for it makes sense to me. I understand how it's often expedient to throw a bunch of stuff into the linux base port. But I'd be inclined to not include compat stuff in the base ports. If anything, I think it's better to be minimal in the base ports. For one thing, when we upgrade the base port (for instance, from the current default fc4 to fc5), compat rpms will disappear and we'll have to fix a bunch of other ports rather than just being able to update the base port by itself. As leaf ports are upgraded, they tend to be less likely to need compat libs, too. So the need for certain compat libs lessens over time. Also other base ports (non-default) may have a different collection of rpms that may or may not include the same compat libs. Yes, I realize, the other base ports aren't supported, but keeping the minimum stable set of packages (everyone needs 'cp' and 'glibc', for instance) in the base will make updating the default base port less onerous as well. We'll less likely need to have to change lots of leaf ports (because of a disappearing compat lib) any time we update the default base. If we keep the compat libs out of the base and in their own separate ports, we mark the dependency in each leaf port that needs a particular compat lib. The leaf port maintainer can then remove that dependency over time as he updates his port which may not then need the compat lib. I just think that not infecting the base port with compat packages is a win in the long term. That said, I don't have a patch to change the status quo. But I think we should avoid it in the future. Maybe if there is sufficient agreement, I'll dig in and come up with one to remove compat packages from fc4. Does anyone have a list of what ports need the compat libs (or a way to determine that)?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17581.19504.67310.756226>