cvs commit: ports/emulators/linux_base-fc4 Makefile

[Alexander Leidinger]

Quoting David O'Brien <obrien at FreeBSD.org> (from Sun, 23 Dec 2007  
20:46:06 -0800):

> On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 01:36:27PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>> Quoting David O'Brien <obrien at FreeBSD.org> (from Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:34:02
>> -0800):
>>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 09:23:55AM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>>> This change does make it so one can add the right linux_base.  Without
>>> it, one must go churning thru /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk to figure out
>>> what specific distro is the right app.
>>
>> This is only true if you want to add it by hand, instead of letting the
>> pkg tools tell you which one to download. What I would like to know is,
>> if you are adding it by hand and then using a linux program which is
>> not available as a port, or if you install a linux program from
>> ports/pkg by installing all the prerequisite by hand.
>
> Both.
> The last time I 'pkg_add -r'ed linux_base it was to run company internal
> applications that aren't a FreeBSD package.
>
> At times I also like to pre-install some dependencies - to make it easier
> to monitor the install of the application I'm ultimately interested in.
>
>> I'm asking this, because normally it doesn't make sense to install
>> linux programs as packages. The ports download binary files anyway, and
>> there's no compiling or some other time consuming operation happening.
>
> Sure it does - it is faster to 'pkg_add -r linux_base' than "build" it
> from /usr/ports - where one has to download 36 files.  Especially if the
> first MASTER_SITE listed isn't having a good day.

Set a FreeBSD mirror as the master site override in make.conf and you  
only have to bother about this if FreeBSD doesn't carry the distfile.

>> In most of the cases installing a linux base by hand is the wrong thing
>> to do.
>
> That is a very personal POV.  I see nothing wrong with it.  Expecially if
> one is scripting the installation of several FreeBSD boxes.  And if we do

Scripting is not really a problem, specially when you install a port  
which depends upon the default linux base port. But this does not  
matter here. As said, I don't object to the change, I just want to  
know the reason behind it. Thanks for sharing it with me.

And I stand to the POV that in most cases installing a linux base port  
by hand is the wrong thing. If you know what you are doing, you can do  
what you want, but in most cases the people don't have a clue about  
linux base and as such it is better to let the automatic dependency  
resolution take care about the installation of the linux base port.  
This results in less support mails to freebsd-emulation at . As long as  
nobody advocates to install the linux base port by hand, feel free to  
come up with suggestions/patches how to make the work you are doing  
more easy (a pre-commit review request on freebsd-emulation@ would be  
very nice).

> a proper job of keeping "linux_base" pointing to the right package, this
> line in Sysinstall doesn't have to keep changing to chase our
> advancements:
>     config.c:    i = package_add("linux_base-fc");

You don't have to justify the addition of LATEST_LINK. As already said  
in a previous mail, I don't object, I just want to understand why you  
need it (I don't think the sysinstall part was your main reason for  
your commit, just a side-effect... and that is ok for me).

Bye,
Alexander.

-- 
Don't abandon hope.
Your Captain Midnight decoder ring arrives tomorrow.

http://www.Leidinger.net    Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org       netchild @ FreeBSD.org  : PGP ID = 72077137