Quoting Boris Samorodov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Sat, 04 Aug 2007 02:09:47
+0400):
[CCing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:58:47 +0200 Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Boris Samorodov píše v so 04. 08. 2007 v 01:30 +0400:
> Seems that running ldconfig while building a package at package
> cluster (i.e. when PACKAGE_BUILDING is defined) is quite useless. [1]
>
> To be more specific I'm interested at linux ports. ATM we run linux
> ldconfig (using linuxulator) _at package building_. Hence to create a
> package for FC6 port we should change compat.linux.osrelease (which I
> don't like and try to avoid). If the "ldconfig" stage may be skipped
> when PACKAGE_BUILDING is defined then things get way too easier both
> for default kernel linux.osrelease and default linux_base port change.
I don't follow - what is the problem?
An FC6 port can't be build (and more specific -- linux-fc6 ldconfig
doesn't run) with current default compat.linux.osrelease=2.4.2. So
this sysctl should be changed to 2.6.16 for package building sake.
When the default compat.linux.osrelease will be switched to 2.6.16 we
will get the other way round problem if we try to build and FC4 port.
I don't like the status quo and want to find a way to siplify it.
It's not only a ldconfig problem, it's a generic problem. The gtk
ports run plugin detection programs (gtk-query-immodules-2.0-32 and
gdk-pixbuf-query-loaders-32) at installation time.
Do you think it is a problem when the non-default linux port is not
available as a package? Currently I don't think it is a big problem
(you can check the value of the sysctl and IGNORE if it is not ok).
When we switch the default, it will be a problem for those releases
which we still support but which have not the "good" default value for
the linux emulation (AFAIK pointyhat is running -current with some
jails for RELENG_x builds). One workaround would be that portmgr sets
the right value in the jail for the package build for the
corresponding release. This would be the cleanest solution, as all
linux ports are then build in the right environment and we don't have
to add magic code to every linux port (or bsd.port.mk).
Kris, your opinion?
Bye,
Alexander.
--
Howe's Law:
Everyone has a scheme that will not work.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
