Missing libg2c.so.0 ?

[Alexander Leidinger]

Quoting John E Hein <jhein at timing.com> (from Thu, 6 Jul 2006 11:45:20 -0600):

> I understand how it's often expedient to throw a bunch of stuff into
> the linux base port.
>
> But I'd be inclined to not include compat stuff in the base ports.
> If anything, I think it's better to be minimal in the base ports.

We do this already. I haven't looked yet, but AFAIR the compat lib is  
a glibc or a stdc++ one... this is a very basic lib and to me it made  
more sense to include it in the linux base. For the libg2c I think  
it's better suited as a separate port (already committed by Boris).

> For one thing, when we upgrade the base port (for instance, from the
> current default fc4 to fc5), compat rpms will disappear and we'll have
> to fix a bunch of other ports rather than just being able to update
> the base port by itself.

FYI: before we can update to the fc5 (or fc6) port, we need to get an  
updated linuxolator in the kernel (there's a SoC project in progress).  
It needs to be available in all supported releases before we can make  
the switch. So don't expect an update soon (it may be the case that we  
make the default dependend upon the OSVERSION, but there was not even  
a discussion about this, it's just one entry on my list of  
possibilities we have).

> As leaf ports are upgraded, they tend to be less likely to need compat
> libs, too.  So the need for certain compat libs lessens over time.

Isn't this great? :-)

> Also other base ports (non-default) may have a different collection of
> rpms that may or may not include the same compat libs.

When you take a look at the non default linux base ports, you will  
notice that they are *all* scheduled for removal (except for the  
gentoo ones, but they tell you to use the default in case you get  
problems).

> Yes, I realize, the other base ports aren't supported, but keeping the
> minimum stable set of packages (everyone needs 'cp' and 'glibc', for
> instance) in the base will make updating the default base port less
> onerous as well.

That's the goal... more or less. I don't go for the minimum stable set  
of packages. I targeted an useful small set (trying to make a good  
tradeoff between coverage and size) in the past.

> We'll less likely need to have to change lots of leaf ports (because
> of a disappearing compat lib) any time we update the default base.
>
> If we keep the compat libs out of the base and in their own separate
> ports, we mark the dependency in each leaf port that needs a
> particular compat lib.  The leaf port maintainer can then remove
> that dependency over time as he updates his port which may not
> then need the compat lib.
>
> I just think that not infecting the base port with compat packages
> is a win in the long term.

Someone has to:
  - identify affected ports
  - change them to use a compat packe or update them to not need the
    compat package

When we wait until we really need it, it may be less work to do,  
because someone may already have updated one of those ports to a  
version which doesn't need the compat lib.

ATM we have items with a higher priority on the TODO list, but if you  
want to do this, feel free to send patches.

> That said, I don't have a patch to change the status quo.  But I think
> we should avoid it in the future.  Maybe if there is sufficient
> agreement, I'll dig in and come up with one to remove compat packages
> from fc4.  Does anyone have a list of what ports need the compat libs
> (or a way to determine that)?

You could use a tinderbox (the software is in the ports collection),  
remove the compat libs and make a full run (of at least the linux  
ports).

Bye,
Alexander.

-- 
Professor: "A toast to Leela. She showed us it's wrong to eat certain
things."

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