This patch changes the default linux_base version to emulators/linux_base-8. It also contains a patch which removes the implicit use of USE_LINUX in the USE_LINUX_PREFIX case (change not yet documented in the patch, since I've changed the comments from 4 column tabs to 8 column tabs; I will document it in the 4 column tabs version if I get approval to commit the patch). The linux_base-8 port ist marked RESTRICTED with "binaries under GNU GPL without accompanying source". Either this can be removed, or the actual linux_base has to marked as RESTRICTED too. I didn't changed this in my patch (yet). The patch contains the necessary changes to linux ports too (and a little bit of cleanup regarding the linux bits). It's based upon guesswork (the linux X11 lib dependencies, I haven't installed/tested all ports). It also fixes some ports which are marked BROKEN because of dependencies to v7 and v8 of linux_base. Additionally it contains a patch similar to the one in the follow-up to PR 69997. There's no auto-detection, since this suggests every linux port is supposed to work with every linux_base. We can't guarantee this. Rationale for the removing the implicit USE_LINUX in the USE_LINUX_PREFIX case: I want to modernize the linux_base when I get time for it. Since I want to modularize it at the same time (linux_base as a meta-port), I need a way to be able to do what USE_LINUX_PREFIX does without the implicit USE_LINUX. USE_LINUX should add a dependency to the linux_base port of the day, so using it in the components which make up linux_base would create a circular dependency. I could do what USE_LINUX_PREFIX does by hand in every port, but I don't think we should go this route. The rationale for splitting up linux_base: we don't need to portupgrade the entire linux_base when we update one particular part (e.g. because of a security fix), and it should be more easy to take care when security issues show up.
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->trevor Over to maintainer
I personal was hoping for someone who is willing to create something like 'USE_LINUX=foobar' rather than just a 'yes'. We have more than two linux stuff. It should looks something like this (maybe in /etc/make.conf? Up to the user what they want the default, but the global default is redhat8 or redhat9): USE_LINUX=[redhat7|redhat8|gentoo|debian|foobar|etc] Perhaps, even add something like: LINUX_DEPENDS=${LINUXBASE}/path/to/foobar.so:${PORTSDIR}/cat/port The LINUX_ should understand the USE_LINUX=[redhat7|redhat8|gentoo|debian]. I am not sure what's best, but trying to show some ideas to make the maintainer's (include user) life more easier. Because, the linux stuff is kind of messy when some linux ports support both linux_base(-8) and maybe more than just both. As for myself, I am still using linux_base so this PR is freaking me out and I will want the 'USE_LINUX=redhat7' in my /etc/make.conf. ;-) Cheers, Mezz -- mezz7@cox.net - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:45:08 -0500, Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net> wrote: > I personal was hoping for someone who is willing to create something > like 'USE_LINUX=foobar' rather than just a 'yes'. We have more than two > linux stuff. It should looks something like this (maybe in > /etc/make.conf? Up to the user what they want the default, but the > global default is redhat8 or redhat9): > > USE_LINUX=[redhat7|redhat8|gentoo|debian|foobar|etc] > > Perhaps, even add something like: > > LINUX_DEPENDS=${LINUXBASE}/path/to/foobar.so:${PORTSDIR}/cat/port > > The LINUX_ should understand the > USE_LINUX=[redhat7|redhat8|gentoo|debian]. I am not sure what's best, > but trying to show some ideas to make the maintainer's (include user) > life more easier. Because, the linux stuff is kind of messy when some > linux ports support both linux_base(-8) and maybe more than just both. > > As for myself, I am still using linux_base so this PR is freaking me out > and I will want the 'USE_LINUX=redhat7' in my /etc/make.conf. ;-) Umm, I mean 'WITH_LINUX=redhat7' in /etc/make.conf..... Cheers, Mezz > Cheers, > Mezz -- mezz7@cox.net - mezz@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD GNOME Team http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - gnome@FreeBSD.org
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:45:08 -0500, Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net> wrote: > I personal was hoping for someone who is willing to create something > like 'USE_LINUX=foobar' rather than just a 'yes'. We have more than > two linux stuff. It should looks something like this (maybe in > /etc/make.conf? Up to the user what they want the default, but the > global default is redhat8 or redhat9): > > USE_LINUX=[redhat7|redhat8|gentoo|debian|foobar|etc] > > Perhaps, even add something like: > > LINUX_DEPENDS=${LINUXBASE}/path/to/foobar.so:${PORTSDIR}/cat/port > > The LINUX_ should understand the > USE_LINUX=[redhat7|redhat8|gentoo|debian]. I am not sure what's best, > but trying to show some ideas to make the maintainer's (include user) > life more easier. Because, the linux stuff is kind of messy when some > linux ports support both linux_base(-8) and maybe more than just both. > > As for myself, I am still using linux_base so this PR is freaking me > out and I will want the 'USE_LINUX=redhat7' in my /etc/make.conf. ;-) Mezz, Check out the last patch I submitted to ports/69997 (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/69997) for a smaller alternative although I am not certain which is better in the long run. Sean ----------------------- sean-freebsd@farley.org
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:57:36 -0500 (CDT) Sean Farley <sean-freebsd@farley.org> wrote: > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:45:08 -0500, Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net> wrote: > > > I personal was hoping for someone who is willing to create something > > like 'USE_LINUX=foobar' rather than just a 'yes'. We have more than > > two linux stuff. It should looks something like this (maybe in > > /etc/make.conf? Up to the user what they want the default, but the > > global default is redhat8 or redhat9): > > > > USE_LINUX=[redhat7|redhat8|gentoo|debian|foobar|etc] > > > > Perhaps, even add something like: > > > > LINUX_DEPENDS=${LINUXBASE}/path/to/foobar.so:${PORTSDIR}/cat/port > > > > The LINUX_ should understand the > > USE_LINUX=[redhat7|redhat8|gentoo|debian]. I am not sure what's best, > > but trying to show some ideas to make the maintainer's (include user) > > life more easier. Because, the linux stuff is kind of messy when some > > linux ports support both linux_base(-8) and maybe more than just both. > > > > As for myself, I am still using linux_base so this PR is freaking me > > out and I will want the 'USE_LINUX=redhat7' in my /etc/make.conf. ;-) > > Mezz, > > Check out the last patch I submitted to ports/69997 > (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/69997) for a smaller > alternative although I am not certain which is better in the long run. Take a look at the patch, it already contains your suggestion (with the default to linux_base-8). So it should satisfy both of you. Since I only have connectivity to the net at the weekends for a while, I can't keep the patch up-to-date every day. I don't try to push this patch into the tree for a while because of this, so if someone wants to do the dirty work of pushing it into the minds of the people in charge, I can commit it at the weekends (or feel free to find someone to commit it). Bye, Alexander. -- The best things in life are free, but the expensive ones are still worth a look. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
Forgive me, I am currently stuck with the webmail (lacking wrap and etc) since my motherboard has died. I am using different desktop computer that is not mine. > From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> > Date: 2004/08/28 Sat AM 05:28:29 EDT > To: Sean Farley <sean-freebsd@farley.org> > CC: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, mezz@FreeBSD.org > Subject: Re: ports/70539: Change the default linux_base and a little bit of > cleanup > > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:57:36 -0500 (CDT) > Sean Farley <sean-freebsd@farley.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:45:08 -0500, Jeremy Messenger <mezz7@cox.net> wrote: > > > > > I personal was hoping for someone who is willing to create something > > > like 'USE_LINUX=foobar' rather than just a 'yes'. We have more than > > > two linux stuff. It should looks something like this (maybe in > > > /etc/make.conf? Up to the user what they want the default, but the > > > global default is redhat8 or redhat9): > > > > > > USE_LINUX=[redhat7|redhat8|gentoo|debian|foobar|etc] > > > > > > Perhaps, even add something like: > > > > > > LINUX_DEPENDS=${LINUXBASE}/path/to/foobar.so:${PORTSDIR}/cat/port > > > > > > The LINUX_ should understand the > > > USE_LINUX=[redhat7|redhat8|gentoo|debian]. I am not sure what's best, > > > but trying to show some ideas to make the maintainer's (include user) > > > life more easier. Because, the linux stuff is kind of messy when some > > > linux ports support both linux_base(-8) and maybe more than just both. > > > > > > As for myself, I am still using linux_base so this PR is freaking me > > > out and I will want the 'USE_LINUX=redhat7' in my /etc/make.conf. ;-) > > > > Mezz, > > > > Check out the last patch I submitted to ports/69997 > > (http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/69997) for a smaller > > alternative although I am not certain which is better in the long run. > > Take a look at the patch, it already contains your suggestion (with the > default to linux_base-8). So it should satisfy both of you. Thanks Sean for show me this PR. I am still thinking a easier and better way. Do you think, it is good idea to do this? For example: ================================= www/linux-opera: Makefile (point to default redhat8 or redhat9) Makefile.debian Makefile.gentoo Makefile.redhat6 Makefile.redhat7 Makefile.redhat8 [...] pkg-plist pkg-plist.debian pkg-plist.gentoo pkg-plist.redhat6 pkg-plist.redhat7 pkg-plist.redhat8 ================================= Then if the user has 'WITH_LINUX=gentoo' in make.conf and it will use all Makefile.gentoo, pkg-plist.gentoo and etc. Will we accept that kind of stuff? Trying to make the things lesser messy and complicate in Makefile and bsd.*.mk. Also, above method seems to be easier for us to maintain. I shall add my comment in that ports/69997 sometime soon. BTW: Thanks for your work, Alexander. Cheers, Mezz > Since I only have connectivity to the net at the weekends for a while, I > can't keep the patch up-to-date every day. I don't try to push this > patch into the tree for a while because of this, so if someone wants to > do the dirty work of pushing it into the minds of the people in charge, > I can commit it at the weekends (or feel free to find someone to commit > it). > > Bye, > Alexander.
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, Alexander Leidinger wrote: <snip> > Take a look at the patch, it already contains your suggestion (with > the default to linux_base-8). So it should satisfy both of you. I understand. I was just letting Mezz know about a smaller alternative to start with as opposed to not going with anything. My solution was only a small step for FreeBSD-kind. :) Sean ----------------------- sean-freebsd@farley.org
State Changed From-To: open->analyzed Thanks for finding the ports which use Linux X11 libraries. I've requested a macro in bsd.port.mk so this dependency can be recorded compactly (see PR 75301). I've prepared a new Linux base port using packages from SUSE 9.1 (see PR 75296), which is more suitable as a default than is linux_base-8. Red Hat 8 has been discontinued.
Zitat von Trevor Johnson <trevor@FreeBSD.org>: > Thanks for finding the ports which use Linux X11 libraries. I've > requested a macro in bsd.port.mk so this dependency can be recorded > compactly (see PR 75301). This was one of the next steps on my TODO list. Together with fixing the USE_X11_PREFIX mess in the linux ports (USE_X11_PREFIX implies USE_XLIB, but the linux programs don't need the FreeBSD X11 libs). > I've prepared a new Linux base port using packages from SUSE 9.1 > (see PR 75296), which is more suitable as a default than is > linux_base-8. Red Hat 8 has been discontinued. The reason is to allow for a smooth transition. I know that v8 can be used as a drop in replacement for v7. We already have alot of ports which depend upon v8, so lifting the default from v7 to v8 would solve those ports which are broken because of conflicts between v7 and v8. After this I had indented to fix some "bugs" (like the handling of the X11 prefix in the linux ports) and export the rpm infrastructure from linux-gtk/Makefile to a file in Mk/. I've choosed to do it this way, because I think this is more beneficial for our userbase. The ports which depend on v8 are tested, switching the rest to v8 should be stright forward, it unbreaks some ports and the users benefit while the developer doesn't has to spend that much time into the development as he has for an update to v9 (creating the port, testing everything, ...). The total time for the developer may be higher, but as an user I prefer the way I've outlined. BTW.: the patch doesn't only adds a dependency to the linux XFree86 port, it also fixes some bugs. Would you please explain what your comment means? Do you want to throw the patch into the thrashcan, or do you like it but just want a default to v9 instead to v8? What about the question in my mail to you regarding releasing the linux infrastructure ports to the public (e.g. to freebsd-emulation@ or to a to be created linux mailinglist -- maybe linuxolator@FreeBSD.org), which the commit of the patch would incorporate? Bye, Alexander. -- http://www.Leidinger.net/ Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org/ netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Alexander@Leidinger.net wrote: > Zitat von Trevor Johnson <trevor@FreeBSD.org>: > > > Thanks for finding the ports which use Linux X11 libraries. I've > > requested a macro in bsd.port.mk so this dependency can be recorded > > compactly (see PR 75301). > > This was one of the next steps on my TODO list. Well, now it's done. :-) > > I've prepared a new Linux base port using packages from SUSE 9.1 > > (see PR 75296), which is more suitable as a default than is > > linux_base-8. Red Hat 8 has been discontinued. [...] > Would you please explain what your comment means? Do you want to throw > the patch into the thrashcan, or do you like it but just want a default > to v9 instead to v8? As I mentioned in PR 75296, Red Hat 9 has also been discontinued (at the same time as 8.0). Red Hat no longer issues security updates, nor advisories, for it--see <URL:http://www.seifried.org/security/redhat/20031230-redhat-support.html>. That's why I made the SUSE 9.1 Linux base port. I see your point about wanting more QA for it, but better security is an important "feature" too. The Linux base port in NetBSD pkgsrc is based upon SUSE; the distribution is somewhat popular, and it contains 2263 source RPMs, so lack of software that works with it should not be a major problem. With linux_base-8 I wasn't striving for something that would work with all Linux software. I want to see what the response of portmgr is to my request for the USE_LINUX_X11 macro. If it's denied, they'll be recorded the way you proposed in your patch, or similarly--is there any advantage to depending on libXrender rather than libX11? If my macro is approved then I will record the dependencies with that, but still based upon your patch. > What about the question in my mail to you regarding > releasing the linux infrastructure ports to the public (e.g. to > freebsd-emulation@ or to a to be created linux mailinglist -- maybe > linuxolator@FreeBSD.org), which the commit of the patch would > incorporate? I missed that in your patch. For now I prefer to be listed as maintainer of the ports I maintain. When error logs and such are addressed directly to me they are easier for me to keep up with. Most of those Linux infrastructure ports are assigned to ports@ so you can just sweep them up when your list is ready, or right now if you prefer. -- Trevor Johnson
Zitat von Trevor Johnson <trevor@jpj.net>: > > > Thanks for finding the ports which use Linux X11 libraries. I've > > > requested a macro in bsd.port.mk so this dependency can be recorded > > > compactly (see PR 75301). > > > > This was one of the next steps on my TODO list. > > Well, now it's done. :-) Fine. To portmgr: I haven't looked at the PR, but I support a feature like this. > > > I've prepared a new Linux base port using packages from SUSE 9.1 > > > (see PR 75296), which is more suitable as a default than is > > > linux_base-8. Red Hat 8 has been discontinued. > [...] > > Would you please explain what your comment means? Do you want to throw > > the patch into the thrashcan, or do you like it but just want a default > > to v9 instead to v8? > > As I mentioned in PR 75296, Red Hat 9 has also been discontinued (at the > same time as 8.0). Red Hat no longer issues security updates, nor > advisories, for it--see > <URL:http://www.seifried.org/security/redhat/20031230-redhat-support.html>. > That's why I made the SUSE 9.1 Linux base port. I see your point about > wanting more QA for it, but better security is an important "feature" too. ATM no port is marked forbidden. And the linux infrastructure lacked a lot of care in the last months. I don't know if this makes a difference and which one of those features (QA/security) should have a higher priority in this case. > The Linux base port in NetBSD pkgsrc is based upon SUSE; the distribution > is somewhat popular, and it contains 2263 source RPMs, so lack of software > that works with it should not be a major problem. With linux_base-8 I > wasn't striving for something that would work with all Linux software. I don't care about the distribution we use. ATM I've used v8 because this is an existing port and alot of linux ports already depend upon it. My patch unifies the linux_base handling (and unbreaks some ports because of this). After the unification I intended to update to a more recent linux base (I haven't made up my mind which one we should use). > I want to see what the response of portmgr is to my request for the > USE_LINUX_X11 macro. If it's denied, they'll be recorded the way you > proposed in your patch, or similarly--is there any advantage to depending > on libXrender rather than libX11? If my macro is approved then I will > record the dependencies with that, but still based upon your patch. libXrender isn't available in linux_base-6. I don't know if all our linux ports may be able to run with linux_base-6, but it's too old and I want to deprecate it. Having the linux X11 ports depend upon something which isn't available in linux_base-6 is a "better safe than sorry" action from me. > > What about the question in my mail to you regarding > > releasing the linux infrastructure ports to the public (e.g. to > > freebsd-emulation@ or to a to be created linux mailinglist -- maybe > > linuxolator@FreeBSD.org), which the commit of the patch would > > incorporate? > > I missed that in your patch. For now I prefer to be listed as maintainer ATM I've assigned all of our ports I've touched with this patch to ports@freebsd.org because I haven't made up my mind which ML to use. > of the ports I maintain. When error logs and such are addressed directly > to me they are easier for me to keep up with. Most of those Linux > infrastructure ports are assigned to ports@ so you can just sweep them up > when your list is ready, or right now if you prefer. You've failed to be responsive. My PR was unanswered by you for roughly 4 months. There are other PRs which where unanswered by you (there where commits with maintainer timeouts, e.g. linux-gtk2). Assigning the important ports to a mailinglist would solve this problem. We don't have a quarantee you are more responsive in the future. We also don't have a quarantee I'm responive in the next months. But as long as some committers care about our linux infrastructure there will be some committers subscribed to a mailinglist (freebsd-emulation, linuxolator or whatever) and take care about it. We have the X11, GNOME and KDE lists as a good example for this behavior. My proposal: outline what you want to do (like I did above and in my other mails) and let portmgr decide which way we should go. Bye, Alexander. -- http://www.Leidinger.net/ Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org/ netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
State Changed From-To: analyzed->closed The updated version of the patch is committed. Any further discussion should be held somewhere else.