Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:29:10 +0400 From: Chagin Dmitry <dchagin@freebsd.org> To: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> Cc: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>, freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADSUP: new linux infrastructure ports are committed Message-ID: <20090402092910.GA4539@dchagin.static.corbina.ru> 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
--n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 12:25:41PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote: > On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:14:19 +0200 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> (from Thu, 02 Apr 2009 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. >=20 > > 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?). >=20 > That sounds to me like base_port >=3D non_base_ports. I'll agree. > But not equal. >=20 > 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. >=20 yeah, I am really interested, for me current working version of glibc is 2.9 :) > In fact, all those who now use other base ports than fc4 are falling > into the list of users of this feature. >=20 >=20 --=20 Have fun! chd --n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAknUhWUACgkQ0t2Tb3OO/O23qACdHCj3WbaLT9IEeKjGQHG6q3dS w04AoJ2rwzonKYrdZI6m6NdCKUkWageA =GKrT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --n8g4imXOkfNTN/H1--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090402092910.GA4539>