Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:39:26 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: John E Hein <jhein@timing.com> Cc: FreeBSD-emulation <freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Missing libg2c.so.0 ? Message-ID: <20060707113926.k1gc995yi0okk40g@netchild.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <17581.19504.67310.756226@gromit.timing.com> 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> <17581.19504.67310.756226@gromit.timing.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting John E Hein <jhein@timing.com> (from Thu, 6 Jul 2006 11:45:20 -0600)=
:
> 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.
We do this already. I haven't looked yet, but AFAIR the compat lib is =20
a glibc or a stdc++ one... this is a very basic lib and to me it made =20
more sense to include it in the linux base. For the libg2c I think =20
it's better suited as a separate port (already committed by Boris).
> 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.
FYI: before we can update to the fc5 (or fc6) port, we need to get an =20
updated linuxolator in the kernel (there's a SoC project in progress). =20
It needs to be available in all supported releases before we can make =20
the switch. So don't expect an update soon (it may be the case that we =20
make the default dependend upon the OSVERSION, but there was not even =20
a discussion about this, it's just one entry on my list of =20
possibilities we have).
> 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.
Isn't this great? :-)
> Also other base ports (non-default) may have a different collection of
> rpms that may or may not include the same compat libs.
When you take a look at the non default linux base ports, you will =20
notice that they are *all* scheduled for removal (except for the =20
gentoo ones, but they tell you to use the default in case you get =20
problems).
> 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.
That's the goal... more or less. I don't go for the minimum stable set =20
of packages. I targeted an useful small set (trying to make a good =20
tradeoff between coverage and size) in the past.
> 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.
Someone has to:
- identify affected ports
- change them to use a compat packe or update them to not need the
compat package
When we wait until we really need it, it may be less work to do, =20
because someone may already have updated one of those ports to a =20
version which doesn't need the compat lib.
ATM we have items with a higher priority on the TODO list, but if you =20
want to do this, feel free to send patches.
> 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)?
You could use a tinderbox (the software is in the ports collection), =20
remove the compat libs and make a full run (of at least the linux =20
ports).
Bye,
Alexander.
--=20
Professor: "A toast to Leela. She showed us it's wrong to eat certain
things."
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?20060707113926.k1gc995yi0okk40g>