Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:41:01 -0800 From: Jordan K Hubbard <jkh@queasyweasel.com> To: The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.ath.cx> Cc: Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de>, libh@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problem confirmed (?) and death to lib[h]disk (!) (Re: serious libh linking problems) Message-ID: <9A478A86-F750-11D6-9957-000393BB9222@queasyweasel.com> In-Reply-To: <20021113213317.GG9829@xtanbul.studio.espresso-com.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I think that perhaps the "core" of sysinstall can be compiled but everything to do with the user interface, the details of which distributions are selected, and so on - just about everything that's "policy level" should be scripted. Why? Because it will make things 100X easier for the universities and large ISPs and whatnot of the world to completely change syinstall's behavior to fit their own unique needs, say with different default package sets, menus and UIs in different languages or different layouts, you name it. I would only expect those parts of sysinstall which are so "core" and essential and nature that nobody would ever want to customize them to be compiled. - Jordan On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 01:33 PM, The Anarcat wrote: > On Wed Nov 13, 2002 at 07:36:14PM +0100, Alexander Langer wrote: >> Thus spake The Anarcat (anarcat@anarcat.ath.cx): >> >>> Interesting. That might be related to it. Maybe if we try to link >>> libhsysinstall directly against -lh? >>>> I might be able to take a look at this later today :) >>> Thank you. We might even get a dynamic tclh after all! :) >> >> OK, thanks to the libdisk changes that came with GEOM, I'm not >> able to build libhdisk at the moment at all. >> >> However, I had some old libraries of libh* floating around in /usr/lib >> (old == September/October or so), and pkg_create just linked correctly >> (and then running produced a Bus error :) >> >> I'd suspect a local problem of yours. >> >> Ciao >> >> Alex >> >> PS: libdisk in -CURRENT lacks a shutload of functions that were in >> before. It's rather unusable nowadays :-/ > > Hurray. > > That's pretty bad. Isn't libdisk used by sysinstall? Doesn't the > libdisk breakage break sysinstall and therefore 5.0 installs??? > > Anyways, I think this confirms my suspicion that I broke the library > build somehow. I'll dig up older libh versions to see how exactly, > maybe I can finally figure this one out. > > But I can say with pretty much certainty that my system is "clean", > i.e. the libraries I have installed are what libh installs if you do > it from scratch. > > Can't you just drop libhdisk from the build? I think it needs to die > anyways. I doubt anything really depends on it apart from the disk > editor. If you agree, I'll start getting libh free of libhdisk. We'll > have to rewrite the disk editor, but I don't see that as a problem at > all. > > Honestly, I think the sysinstall2 program in itself should be > compiled, not interpreted, precisely because of such problems: I don't > want to make a libhdisk library to follow each and every change of the > local disk infrastructure. > > Well, maybe *some* parts of the program could be interpreted, but the > low-level disk manipulations *will* have to be compiled, so I'd rather > interface the system libraries directly than create more TCL wrappers. > > What do you think? > > A. > -- Jordan K. Hubbard Engineering Manager, BSD technology group Apple Computer To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-libh" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9A478A86-F750-11D6-9957-000393BB9222>