Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 14:01:24 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@icir.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/local/share/mk ? Message-ID: <20070201140124.A85626@xorpc.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <20070201204153.GA74138@xor.obsecurity.org>; from kris@obsecurity.org on Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 03:41:53PM -0500 References: <20070201111727.B83474@xorpc.icir.org> <20070201192051.GA72926@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070201113720.D83474@xorpc.icir.org> <20070201194417.GA73296@xor.obsecurity.org> <20070201123026.C84181@xorpc.icir.org> <20070201204153.GA74138@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 03:41:53PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 12:30:26PM -0800, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> > and to answer to your second point...
> > On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 02:44:17PM -0500, Kris Kennaway wrote:
...
> > > That Makefile.kld would be a fragment of a port makefile, right? Your
> > > bsd.linux_kmod.mk could go in /usr/ports/Mk although it seems to make
> > > more sense as part of /usr/src.
Consider that there might well be people who want to use the
linux-kmod-bsd stuff outside the ports tree, same as for any other
tool they install. So I think there are only two viable options
for places where ports/devel/linux-bsd-kmod installs its .mk file:
1. bsd.linux_kmod.mk is installed in /usr/share/mk/
2. bsd.linux_kmod.mk is installed in /usr/local/somewhere/else/
and /etc/make.conf is modified (automatically or asking the
sysadmin) adding a line
.PATH: /usr/local/somewhere/else/
Both ways make the include available without extra arguments.
Other options don't seem to be as convenient:
putting it in /usr/ports/Mk makes it available [without extra args]
only within the ports, which is not enough.
And as far as i can tell /usr/src is not in the search path for .mk
files ; /usr/share/mk/bsd.kmod.mk does look in a few standard places
but only for conf/kmod.mk
All in all option #1 seems the best one, as it makes it
easier to add/remove the extra file when installing/deinstalling the port.
I am not a big fan of it because it touches the base system,
but if there is no better way, and this is the only instance, why not...
> This is assuming that you plan to add many such drivers; when there
yes i do. i especially hope others will follow up and we can get
better support for random hardware that 'works on linux'.
I just hated when i could not find a webcam that worked on
my system. Now 4 out of the six i have on my (messy) desk now
do work, and the other two aren't supported on linux either!
> P.S. "*-kmod" is the existing standard for kernel module ports, so
> yours should be "linux-*-kmod".
typo.. thanks. Speaking of names, what's best for the devel/ thing ?
linux-bsd-kmod looks like just another module. Should i call it
linux-kmod-compat or bsd-linux-kmod instead ?
cheers
luigi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070201140124.A85626>