Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 15 Feb 2002 11:27:40 -0500
From:      Ken Stailey <kstailey@surfbest.net>
To:        Alan Eldridge <alane@geeksrus.net>
Cc:        klh@panix.com, petef@freebsd.org, portmgr@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Ports List <ports@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: complete pkg-descr files for klh-10 and its
Message-ID:  <3C6D36FC.6010801@surfbest.net>
References:  <3C6D2443.2070201@surfbest.net> <20020215152218.GA53862@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> <3C6D2E51.8090403@surfbest.net> <20020215155946.GA54173@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> <3C6D32A7.50003@surfbest.net> <20020215161655.GA54470@wwweasel.geeksrus.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alan Eldridge wrote:

>On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 11:09:11AM -0500, Ken Stailey wrote:
>
>>Alan Eldridge wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, Feb 15, 2002 at 10:50:41AM -0500, Ken Stailey wrote:
>>>
>>>>Alan Eldridge wrote:
>>>>
>>>I recommend against a default under /usr in general, but, if pressed, it
>>>could go under /usr/local/share/its. I copied portmgr@ in order to get 
>>>suggestions for this. 
>>>
>>Doesn't share imply architecture-independant?  Why would an i386 binary 
>>go under share?  games sounds like a better place to put it:
>>
>
>No, for the its disk image.
>
Trouble is without patches to the emulator .ini files the disk image and 
emulator must both be in the $KLH_HOME directory.   I suppose I could 
write them.  Where to put klh-10 binary if PI disk image is in 
local/share?  It should be a private directory because the binary 
requires many configuration files to be in place along with it.  Perhaps 
a symlink from the $KLH_HOME with the binary to the PI disk image would 
be an easy work around instead of patches for the .ini files.

>
>>>>>If it isn't a per user install, then locking needs to be in place to make
>>>>>sure no more than one copy of klh10 is running.
>>>>>
>>>I don't think there's a way around this. It can be invoked with the 
>>>lockf(1)
>>>command to make this easy. A wrapper script would be needed to do this.
>>>
>>Your thinking goes against the grain of this port.  
>>
>No, it agrees with it.
>
>>The emulator is a timesharing system.  Please read Steve Levy's Hackers book.
>>
>
>I did. When it first came out in 1984(?).  (I was designing
>videodisc-based PC-multimedia POS systems at the time. Did you know
>that programmable videodisc players from Pioneer had a Forth
>interpreter in them?)
>
>>Why on 
>>earth would you run multple separate copies of a timesharing system? 
>>
>
>You wouldn't. I'm trying to enforce this.
>
I wonder if klh-10 has anything already in place to deal with this. 
 Kenneth would know off the top of his head I bet.

>
>
>>There should be one shared instance of klh-10 on one node to preserve 
>>historical approach to timesharing and prevent squandering host CPU and 
>>disk resources.
>>
>
>See previous comment. If you don't enforce it, running two copies could
>trash your disk image.
>
>>>And speaking of packages, its needs to be marked NO_CDROM. It's just too 
>>>big.
>>>

NO_WRKSUBDIR=    yes
NO_BUILD=        yes
NO_PACKAGE=      PI disk image is too big.
NO_CDROM=        PI disk image is too big.



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C6D36FC.6010801>