Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2020 11:02:38 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 247430] Linux ports install too much Message-ID: <bug-247430-4077-6cf1drHpEM@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-247430-4077@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-247430-4077@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D247430 Tijl Coosemans <tijl@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tijl@FreeBSD.org --- Comment #1 from Tijl Coosemans <tijl@FreeBSD.org> --- a) is because there are several 32-bit only Linux application ports. Also, when I announced that I would remove the option to install a pure 32-bit linux_base on amd64 there was immediate response from users worried that th= eir applications might break. So I do think 32-bit support is actively used. I use it myself now that I think about it. I don't object to adding a knob f= or this somewhere, perhaps via bsd.default-versions.mk since this would be a tree-wide option and not a per-port option. For end-users the ideal is probably to have separate packages though, which is a lot more work. b) is something the Linux infrastructure ports have always done. I think i= t is needed for strict compliance with the GPL, but even for non-GPL code it may= be wise to have our own copy of the source code. You never know why it might = be useful. Note that only package builders actually download the file. Regul= ar make doesn't. Also note that an SRPM may contain patches that are not in t= he corresponding FreeBSD port. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-247430-4077-6cf1drHpEM>