Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 07:38:05 -0500 From: Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: How to tell ports to work on FreeBSD 3.x Message-ID: <20010515073805.G11113@casimir.physics.purdue.edu> In-Reply-To: <3B00D8D4.CBF6050F@mindspring.com>; from tlambert2@mindspring.com on Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:20:52AM -0700 References: <20010509140838.C17000@dell.dannyland.org> <200105100026.RAA04754@usr06.primenet.com> <20010509180154.E17000@dell.dannyland.org> <p05100308b7203779c364@[194.78.241.123]> <20010510143702.A84503@rapier.smartspace.co.za> <20010513140646.B63072@xor.obsecurity.org> <20010513182210.G58926@dell.dannyland.org> <3B00D8D4.CBF6050F@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ cc's trimmed ] On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 12:20:52AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > The big problem is that the /usr/share/mk files and the > /usr/ports/Mk files often need to match each other fairly > closely, since the ports targets frequently use targets > in included bsd.*.mk files to do their dirty work. Umm... nope. They don't correlate all that much (and in fact I daresay they RARELY correlate). :) > There are also rather large issues with things like the > C++ compiler requirements for KDE, etc.. Unfortunately, > you can't just upgrade the compiler with a port, even > though one exists, because building requires use of DESTDIR, > and that breaks threaded exception handling and RTTI in a > ports-installed newer version of the compiler, because the > -I in CXXFLAGS gets forced back to the system defaults in > bsd.prog.mk and bsd.lib.mk. That is an actual issue, although it's more about supporting compilers in the base system that's hard enough of a job. > Further, there's a lot of _crud_ in the base system these > days, which brings in a bunch of things, like RSA in > libcrypto, libssl, etc., which weren't formerly there; > any ports that link with these libraries are going to > assume that they are there, if the ports are for a newer > system; this class of assumption alone will break around > 20% of all the ports. Er, yah... why upgrade the openssl & openssh ports if they don't help the majority.. that's the mentality here. And it makes sense too. > If you were to build all of them, and just mark the ones > that didn't work as being broken, that would be a heck of > a lot better "support" for 3.x. Heh. > Realize that you will probably need to clean out /usr/local > on the machine you use for this, and be prepared to xfer > about 400M during the whole process (into /ports/distfiles); > incrementally, you'll have to reclean /usr/local, so that > you don't get any dependencies satisfied by side effect. > When Satoshi builds the packages, he uses a cluster of 8 > machines, and cleans out /usr/local after each build to > ensure against accidental success. Umm... 400M? What kind of crack are you smoking? Try a number a bit closer to 4GB. The ports collection has grown a lot since you paid attention to it, Terry (particularly considering the last time its aggregate distfiles totaled 400M was long before I knew what FreeBSD was). :-) Also, Asami-san's cluster doesn't quite operate in the manner you mentioned. It uses chroot's and packages that were built in chroot's. And a pure, clean binary distribution of the appropriate version of FreeBSD, grabbed off a snapshot server. > It really is a lot of work to support ports for old 3.x > systems properly... Yup. -- wca 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?20010515073805.G11113>