Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:55:53 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> Cc: emulation@FreeBSD.org, kris@FreeBSD.org, pav@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ldconfig when PACKAGE_BUILDING=YES (and linux ports) Message-ID: <20070806095553.l75rul9eok0kw004@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <86849396@bsam.ru> References: <52921778@bsam.ru> <1186178328.46188.2.camel@ikaros.oook.cz> <86849396@bsam.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> (from Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:09:47 +0400)= : [CCing emulation@...] > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:58:47 +0200 Pav Lucistnik wrote: >> Boris Samorodov p=C3=AD=C5=A1e v so 04. 08. 2007 v 01:30 +0400: > >> > Seems that running ldconfig while building a package at package >> > cluster (i.e. when PACKAGE_BUILDING is defined) is quite useless. [1] >> > >> > To be more specific I'm interested at linux ports. ATM we run linux >> > ldconfig (using linuxulator) _at package building_. Hence to create a >> > package for FC6 port we should change compat.linux.osrelease (which I >> > don't like and try to avoid). If the "ldconfig" stage may be skipped >> > when PACKAGE_BUILDING is defined then things get way too easier both >> > for default kernel linux.osrelease and default linux_base port change. > >> I don't follow - what is the problem? > > An FC6 port can't be build (and more specific -- linux-fc6 ldconfig > doesn't run) with current default compat.linux.osrelease=3D2.4.2. So > this sysctl should be changed to 2.6.16 for package building sake. > When the default compat.linux.osrelease will be switched to 2.6.16 we > will get the other way round problem if we try to build and FC4 port. > > I don't like the status quo and want to find a way to siplify it. It's not only a ldconfig problem, it's a generic problem. The gtk =20 ports run plugin detection programs (gtk-query-immodules-2.0-32 and =20 gdk-pixbuf-query-loaders-32) at installation time. Do you think it is a problem when the non-default linux port is not =20 available as a package? Currently I don't think it is a big problem =20 (you can check the value of the sysctl and IGNORE if it is not ok). When we switch the default, it will be a problem for those releases =20 which we still support but which have not the "good" default value for =20 the linux emulation (AFAIK pointyhat is running -current with some =20 jails for RELENG_x builds). One workaround would be that portmgr sets =20 the right value in the jail for the package build for the =20 corresponding release. This would be the cleanest solution, as all =20 linux ports are then build in the right environment and we don't have =20 to add magic code to every linux port (or bsd.port.mk). Kris, your opinion? Bye, Alexander. --=20 Howe's Law: =09Everyone has a scheme that will not work. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070806095553.l75rul9eok0kw004>