Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:28:44 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> Cc: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: HEADSUP: new linux infrastructure ports are committed Message-ID: <20090402112844.37181kh3emgs16w0@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <59154474@h30.sp.ipt.ru> References: <23488525@bb.ipt.ru> <20090402085240.15665qo8nwvu1fwg@webmail.leidinger.net> <25236143@h30.sp.ipt.ru> <20090402101419.66294qotkt3yphpw@webmail.leidinger.net> <59154474@h30.sp.ipt.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> (from Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:25:41 +0400)= : > On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:14:19 +0200 Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> (from Thu, 02 Apr 2009 =20 >> 11:57:52 +0400): >> > On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:52:40 +0200 Alexander Leidinger wrote: >> >> Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> (from Wed, 01 Apr 2009 >> >> 19:34:42 +0400): >> > >> >> > The above mentioned infrasrtucture allows using different linux >> >> > base ports and non-base infrastructure ports. Users should define >> >> > at their /etc/make.conf two variables: OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE_PORT >> >> > and OVERRIDE_LINUX_NON_BASE_PORTS. The valid value for the latter >> >> > is "f8". >> > >> >> Why do we distinguish between BASE_PORT and NON_BASE_PORTS? >> > >> > We distingush them now and I'd rather keep this useful feature. > >> I fail to understand in which case this is useful? AFAIK we can not >> use a base of fc4 with non-base of f8 and for the other way around I >> assume the same (if not: I don't see a point in using fc4 infra on f8 >> base, where do you see a benefit for it?). > > That sounds to me like base_port >=3D non_base_ports. I'll agree. > But not equal. While this may be possible in some cases, I would prefer the "=3D" =20 instead of the ">=3D". What's the fallback in case the NON_BASE is not set? I would expect: _BASE_PORT and _NON_BASE_PORT not set: -> default _BASE_PORT set and _NON_BASE_PORT not set: _NON_BASE_PORT =3D _BASE_PORT > Hm, I've used base of f6 and non-base of fc4 for a long period > of time. Now I'm going to commit base of f9 (f10) and use it > with non-base of 8. Utill apropriate non-base ports get committed. Ok, for testing I see some value in it, but I would prefer if we make =20 it explicit everywhere where it is mentioned, that this is not =20 something which is supposed to work. If it does not work, the user =20 should use the same type of base and non-base ports. Would this be OK =20 for you? Bye, Alexander. --=20 If you change lines, the one you just left will start to move faster than the one you are now in. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID =3D 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090402112844.37181kh3emgs16w0>