Alexander,

thanks for your feedback.

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 08:54:34 +0100 Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Quoting Boris Samorodov (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/f...ry/004380.html

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 .

[...]
> > 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.

[...]
> > 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.


WBR
--
bsam
_______________________________________________
freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/lis...ebsd-emulation
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-emulation-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"