HEADSUP: new linux infrastructure ports are committed

[Chagin Dmitry]

On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 12:25:41PM +0400, Boris Samorodov wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:14:19 +0200 Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> > Quoting Boris Samorodov <bsam at 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 at 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.
> 
> 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.
> 

yeah, I am really interested,
for me current working version of glibc is 2.9 :)

> In fact, all those who now use other base ports than fc4 are falling
> into the list of users of this feature.
> 
> 

-- 
Have fun!
chd
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-emulation/attachments/20090402/27bffbba/attachment.pgp