From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Apr 12 16:59:36 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1855416A4CE
	for <freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org>;
	Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:59:36 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEEF243D46
	for <freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org>;
	Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:59:35 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com)
Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502)
	id 3B4CB149CA; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:59:35 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:59:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>
X-X-Sender: linimon@pancho
To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>
In-Reply-To: <20050411175736.mabpo9me4g4cwc4g@netchild.homeip.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0504121146290.30410-100000@pancho>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: RFC: cleanup of linux ports
X-BeenThere: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Development of Emulators of other operating systems
	<freebsd-emulation.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-emulation>,
	<mailto:freebsd-emulation-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-emulation>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-emulation-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-emulation>,
	<mailto:freebsd-emulation-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:59:36 -0000

I am also still confused by the RUN_DEPENDS logic (some of this logic
is in the current bsd.port.mk).

In certain cases we depend on bin/sh to be the marker, in other cases
etc/redhat-release.  This seems inconsistent.  I wonder if this
would cause problems if trying to install different versions?

This logic also assumes that anything that isn't a partial portname
or '7' should be the default.  This seems wrong.  IMHO after the
test for '7' should be a test for 'yes', which sets whatever is the
current default (currently 8).  Any other value should set IGNORE.
e.g. if someone mistypes USE_LINUX=rh-7 they shouldn't silently get
an install dependency on 8; instead, the installation should fail.
(And either the test should be made sufficiently robust to accept
'y' and 'YES' which occur in 2 ports, or those 2 ports should be
changed to set the value 'yes').

mcl