Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 04:06:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: mark@grondar.za (Mark Murray) Cc: jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com (Jordan Hubbard), arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Moving Things [was Re: List of things to move from main tree] Message-ID: <200102190406.VAA11061@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <200102180937.f1I9b9957438@gratis.grondar.za> from "Mark Murray" at Feb 18, 2001 11:37:47 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Right. Personally, i like XML, but the XML support stuff is big, > and that scares me. The Xerces source code is 5 1/2 MB, compressed. I don't know how big the Gnome library is, or how big the Xerces shared library is, once it's compiled. If XML is going to be used during install, maybe it'd be a good idea to build a small LALR parser, which only knows about the grammar to be used for the specific application. If it's just going to be used for the build of the packages tehmselves, then it'd be OK to have a large, hulking thing as part of that process. Really, FreeBSD is limited by the low end installation media, but I can't see getting rid of that as being positive; I've brought up too may BSD boxes from floppies. I think that whatever gets done, people have to accept that there are some basic constraints on some of this stuff, having to do with the source repository layout. For example, I think it would be a bad idea to move the games around in the repository, just because people want them to be ports, instead of installed by default. It makes no sense to do that. I also think that a nice first run at lists of files installed would be a good thing; frankly, it's very hard to relocate most net software, to know where and what was installed, and to then build something that expects to be installed in a particular location, make an image, and then do the install later. Shared libraries are a particular problem, in that regard. The best way I've thought of to address that so far is to hack make to log calls to "install", "mv", and "cp", when their target isn't interior to the build hierarchy. The utility being built would be logged, along with what got installed as part of the build. Not perfect, but then you at least know what files ended up where as a result of a "make install" for any given utility. Thinking more on this, I think that make should probably scream about the use of "mv" and "cp" instead of "install", so that they can be replaced with "install". Then you could log with install along, just by adding an option that let you add the name of the thing to the log file, as another argument. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102190406.VAA11061>