Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:22:51 +0400 From: Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: HEADSUP: new linux infrastructure ports are committed Message-ID: <46673876@bb.ipt.ru> In-Reply-To: <20090402112844.37181kh3emgs16w0@webmail.leidinger.net> (Alexander Leidinger's message of "Thu\, 02 Apr 2009 11\:28\:44 %2B0200") References: <23488525@bb.ipt.ru> <20090402085240.15665qo8nwvu1fwg@webmail.leidinger.net> <25236143@h30.sp.ipt.ru> <20090402101419.66294qotkt3yphpw@webmail.leidinger.net> <59154474@h30.sp.ipt.ru> <20090402112844.37181kh3emgs16w0@webmail.leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:28:44 +0200 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> (from Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:25:41 +0400): > > On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:14:19 +0200 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > >> Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> (from Thu, 02 Apr 2009 > >> 11:57:52 +0400): > >> > On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:52:40 +0200 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > >> >> Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> (from Wed, 01 Apr 2009 > >> >> 19:34:42 +0400): > >> > > >> >> > The above mentioned infrasrtucture allows using different linux > >> >> > base ports and non-base infrastructure ports. Users should define > >> >> > at their /etc/make.conf two variables: OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE_PORT > >> >> > and OVERRIDE_LINUX_NON_BASE_PORTS. The valid value for the latter > >> >> > is "f8". > >> > > >> >> Why do we distinguish between BASE_PORT and NON_BASE_PORTS? > >> > > >> > We distingush them now and I'd rather keep this useful feature. > > > >> I fail to understand in which case this is useful? AFAIK we can not > >> use a base of fc4 with non-base of f8 and for the other way around I > >> assume the same (if not: I don't see a point in using fc4 infra on f8 > >> base, where do you see a benefit for it?). > > > > That sounds to me like base_port >= non_base_ports. I'll agree. > > But not equal. > While this may be possible in some cases, I would prefer the "=" > instead of the ">=". > What's the fallback in case the NON_BASE is not set? I would expect: > _BASE_PORT and _NON_BASE_PORT not set: -> default > _BASE_PORT set and _NON_BASE_PORT not set: _NON_BASE_PORT = _BASE_PORT Well, we change the meaning (by broading it's area) of OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE_PORT. I don't like it. May be use another variable? > > Hm, I've used base of f6 and non-base of fc4 for a long period > > of time. Now I'm going to commit base of f9 (f10) and use it > > with non-base of 8. Utill apropriate non-base ports get committed. > Ok, for testing I see some value in it, but I would prefer if we make > it explicit everywhere where it is mentioned, that this is not > something which is supposed to work. If it does not work, the user > should use the same type of base and non-base ports. Would this be OK > for you? That's OK to me. It will be good when we are ready to switch defaults to f8. Patches as always are welcome. ;-) WBR -- Boris Samorodov (bsam) Research Engineer, http://www.ipt.ru Telephone & Internet SP FreeBSD Committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46673876>