From owner-freebsd-current Thu Apr 1 4:53: 0 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from nomad.dataplex.net (nomad.dataplex.net [216.140.184.132]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20691519D; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 04:52:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rkw@dataplex.net) Received: from localhost (rkw@localhost) by nomad.dataplex.net (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id GAA03406; Thu, 1 Apr 1999 06:52:35 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rkw@dataplex.net) X-Authentication-Warning: nomad.dataplex.net: rkw owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 06:52:35 -0600 (CST) From: Richard Wackerbarth Reply-To: rkw@dataplex.net To: Satoshi - the Wraith - Asami Cc: jkh@zippy.cdrom.com, jhay@mikom.csir.co.za, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /var/db/pkg/.mkversion In-Reply-To: <199904011036.CAA52719@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG I have to agree that the problem is real. However, let me point out that a "one identifier" solution is very short sided. There are two distinct environments to be considered. The HOST environment and the TARGET environment. For convience, we should also consider a TOOLSET environment which is a cross between the two. Just as it is "wrong" to use compiler variables like, "__FreeBSD__" to control target compilations (except as a default), it is also "wrong" to do so for the ports. The group has come around to the idea that the files in /usr/include represent the HOST and not the TARGET. I suggest that you dig out my old proposal for tagging the HOST in /usr/include. The natural tag for the TARGET would be in /usr/src/include. However, I can see some problems with this for the ports tree. The more general mechanism allows us to "register" capabilities. (Shades of some commercial OS'es) However, we may not want to do things in such a unified manner :-) On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Satoshi - the Wraith - Asami wrote: > It has been pointed out many times in the past > that we need something to ensure bsd.port.mk can synchronize itself > with the rest of the system > > The question is, can I ask you to make sysinstall write some kind of > version info that can be used by bsd.port.mk to identify the age of > the system? > > The problem is real, we've been bitten too many times in the past > (haven't you seen all the "where's fetch -A?" and other more subtle > breakages that are caused by ports and system mismatch) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message