Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:28:07 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@cup.hp.com> To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org, marcel@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Fwd: linux ports (Re: Netscape 6 Linux pre-release, got it going.) Message-ID: <38F4A417.CBDBD48D@cup.hp.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0004112032120.78206-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> <vqcbt3fiy3x.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote: > > * From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> > > (Don't know if Marcel is on -ports, so CC:d explicitly.) I'm not (yet) on -ports. Thanks. > * I don't think we should be breaking up the current linux_base or linux_dev > * ports, because those are (supposed to be) default Redhat installs so > * redhat linux binaries get the environment they are expecting. > > I wasn't aware that they are "default" RedHat installations. (Why are > there two?) But in any case, if there is a reason why the current > sets are designed that way, it's fine for me. The linux_base port is supposed to install just enough packages to mimic a RH base installation. It uses (supposed to use) as much native FreeBSD tools as is compatibility-wise possible. On top of that other packages can be installed that "extend" the base installation. Currently only linux_devtools exists. We've added X related rpms to linux_base because there was no point in creating a linux_x11 port that only installs a single (or maybe 2) rpms. I'm not in favor of adding too much X related packages to linux_base. I prefer to create a new port that contains X "stuff" in that case. > * For additional packages, having monolithic RPM sets seems to me to be > * bloat - why can't we set up a 1-1 mapping of RPM to package, perhaps by a > * single "portal" redhat rpm port which grabs an RPM from the redhat site > * (possibly choosing from a list as an option), munges it to extract the > * PLIST and installs it? > > I don't mind, as long as the maintenance isn't too hard and users can > install/deinstall those packages just like normal FreeBSD ports. The problem may be that we would have 2 systems that specify and use dependencies; our ports collection and the rpms. Having a system that works requires us to either 1) duplicate rpm dependencies into the ports tree (=static) or 2) add a way to extract rpm dependencies from the database/rpms on the fly (=dynamic). NOTE: rpm dependencies may be too inconsistent to be done dynamicly. Normally you would specify only packages (rpms) as dependency, but in this case there may also be (installed) files in the dependency list. There's no easy way to find out which packages you must download/install in order to resolve such a dependency... Having a way to download and install rpms that are required by a port seems like a good idea. It avoids bloating linux_base or creating additional ports (which only increases the overall complexity of setting up /compat/linux). Food for thought: There are more (too much?) packaging systems. rpm is used by RH, but if we allow or have other distributions as well (not necessarily Linux), we automaticly come to a need of "integrating" their packaging systems as well. In other words: If we add support for rpm, we should expect that people will ask to support their favorite packaging system as well... -- Marcel Moolenaar mail: marcel@cup.hp.com / marcel@FreeBSD.org tel: (408) 447-4222 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?38F4A417.CBDBD48D>