Date: 12 Apr 2000 00:20:50 -0700 From: asami@FreeBSD.org (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, marcel@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Fwd: linux ports (Re: Netscape 6 Linux pre-release, got it going.) Message-ID: <vqcbt3fiy3x.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: Kris Kennaway's message of "Tue, 11 Apr 2000 20:32:38 -0700 (PDT)" References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0004112032120.78206-100000@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> (Don't know if Marcel is on -ports, so CC:d explicitly.) * I don't think we should be breaking up the current linux_base or linux_dev * ports, because those are (supposed to be) default Redhat installs so * redhat linux binaries get the environment they are expecting. I wasn't aware that they are "default" RedHat installations. (Why are there two?) But in any case, if there is a reason why the current sets are designed that way, it's fine for me. * For additional packages, having monolithic RPM sets seems to me to be * bloat - why can't we set up a 1-1 mapping of RPM to package, perhaps by a * single "portal" redhat rpm port which grabs an RPM from the redhat site * (possibly choosing from a list as an option), munges it to extract the * PLIST and installs it? I don't mind, as long as the maintenance isn't too hard and users can install/deinstall those packages just like normal FreeBSD ports. Satoshi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?vqcbt3fiy3x.fsf>