Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:34:28 +0100 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> Cc: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: add LINUX_OSRELEASE to bsd.linux-rpm.mk Message-ID: <20080324093428.4f5d3fc4@deskjail> In-Reply-To: <62336383@ipt.ru> References: <07011489@ipt.ru> <20080321115227.zkcrs6rvc4c8s004@webmail.leidinger.net> <98037310@ipt.ru> <20080322085434.10838040@deskjail> <62336383@ipt.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> (Mon, 24 Mar 2008 00:36:00 +0300): > Alexander, > > thanks for your feedback. > > On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 08:54:34 +0100 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> (Sat, 22 Mar 2008 03:56:49 +0300): > > > > E.g. if someone is going to install, say print/acroread7, then the > > > system should detect which ports (upon which acroread depends): either > > > x11-toolkits/linux-pango (current 2.4.2 port) or > > > x11-toolkits/linux_k26-pango (future 2.6.16 port). > > > When I look at k26 somehow I feel some dislike, but as I don't have > > any better idea... you chose the color. > > :-) > Actually, that's your idea I played with: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-emulation/2008-February/004380.html Hehe... quick shot. :) > Seriously, I don't like it too: > . what if the next linux osrelease we will support appear to be > 2.6.60? > . what if we decide to have ports to support both, say, fc6 and f8/f9, > etc.? > . what if we decide to use some other linux distribution (not > necessarily as a default) with 2.6.XX kernel? > > The more I think about the naming the more I return to using a linux > distro name: > x11-toolkits/linux-pango and x11-toolkits/linux-f8-pango . Good idea. When I think about it it seem obvious. Seems I didn't see the tree in the forest (this is a _very_ rough translation of a German proverb, please bear with me, I didn't had breakfast yet). > [...] > > > So, the value of LINUX_OSRELEASE is used to set a value to a new > > > variable LINUX_PORT_SUFFIX. Here is a proof of concept (though it > > > LINUX_OSRELEASE_SUFFIX sounds more intuitive for mem but if you want to > > stick with LINUX_PORT_SUFFIX, it's ok for me. > > If we decide to use a distribution name than it may be smth like > LINUX_DIST_SUFFIX. Ok. > [...] > > > That concept may be introduced now even before the default for > > > linux.osrelease is changed. Current linux infrastructure ports > > > may not be touched -- they'll work as usual. Other linux ports may be > > > transferred one-by-one. And we'll get some application testing with > > > new linux infrastructure ports before official annouce of the change. > > > > > > That path seems to be soft and quiet, with least astonishment. > > > I agree, this is well done. > > Thanks. I even like it myself. ;-) > > > Where do we have to introduce the *_PORT > > stuff? Do we need a bsd.linux.mk, or can the bsd.linux-rpm.mk be used > > for this? The strict answer may be no, but do we want to be that strict? > > Well, I'd prefer to use one existing file: bsd.linux-rpm.mk. If/when > we use some other distro (I have some positive results with ubuntu) > then may be we will have to use bsd.linux-deb.mk and split > bsd.linux-rpm.mk into two files. But so far it's OK to me to use > the existing one. Ok, when we split up, we should think about a linux.mk for generic stuff, and packaging specific mk's. Until then linux-rpm.mk should be ok. Bye, Alexander. -- Suffocating together ... would create heroic camaraderie. -- Khan Noonian Singh, "Space Seed", stardate 3142.8 http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080324093428.4f5d3fc4>