tomcat55 port on AMD64

[Boris Samorodov]

On Thu, 11 May 2006 13:44:01 -0400 Frank Laszlo wrote:
> Boris Samorodov wrote:
> > On Thu, 11 May 2006 13:33:28 -0400 Frank Laszlo wrote:
> >> Boris Samorodov wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 11 May 2006 13:08:19 -0400 Frank Laszlo wrote:
> >>>> Boris Samorodov wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 11 May 2006 12:03:11 -0400 Frank Laszlo wrote:
> >>>>>           
> >>>>>> I submitted a patch[1] to fix this issue some time ago, It has to do
> >>>>>> with the way linux ports handle ARCH, since the linux emulation port
> >>>>>> doesn't work on amd64, its forced to use i386 rpm's. Unfortunately my
> >>>>>> efforts were shun by a brick wall, and no changes were made to address
> >>>>>> this. I am going to repeat this one more time, ARCH should NEVER be
> >>>>>> overwritten, here is yet another example of why.
> >>>>>> [1]http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/91911
> >>>>>>             
> >>>>> Seems that this problem shouldn't exist since updating of the port to
> >>>>> use new bsd.linux-rpm.mk.
> >>>>>           
> >>>> You would think so, but the fact of the matter is, ARCH should be a
> >>>> READONLY variable. It is relied upon heavily in the ports framework and
> >>>> shouldn't be changed, ever. Why we don't just use another variable name
> >>>> to do the trickery is what I am wondering.
> >>>>         
> >>> Argh, yes. You are right. It do have problems with current default
> >>> port linux_base-8. I'm using linux_base-fc3 for a long time and get
> >>> used to it too much.
> >   
> >> It looks like linux_base-fc3 is basically doing what my patch was
> >> intended for, renaming the poor use of ARCH to something else
> >> (LINUX_RPM_ARCH) so that we are not overwriting such an important
> >> variable. But it does still have this for some reason:

> >> .if (${ARCH} == "amd64")
> >> LATEST_LINK:=           ${LATEST_LINK:C/linux/linux32/}
> >> ARCH=                   i386
> >> .endif

> >> I'm not really sure what purpose that serves, as ARCH isn't used
> >> anywhere in the Makefile. perhaps I am missing something from
> >> bsd.linux-rpm.mk.
> >
> > I think that it is intended to use with the packages. As we discussed
> > earlier, there is now native linux on AMD. Hence, one should fetch and
> > install those for i386.

> You mean "there is *not* native linux on AMD." correct?

Wow! Sure. It was designed at my head as "no". But hands added "w".

PS. How much sometimes one letter means!


WBR
-- 
Boris B. Samorodov, Research Engineer
InPharmTech Co,     http://www.ipt.ru
Telephone & Internet Service Provider