[CFH] Allan's 64bits CentOS ports

[Alexander Leidinger]

Quoting Johannes Jost Meixner <johannes at meixner.or.at> (from Wed, 01  
Jul 2015 07:53:25 +0300):

> Allan could use some help reviewing his suite of CentOS 6.6 64bit ports.
>
> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1746

I had a quick look at comments on the top of the page and the diffs of  
bsd.linux-apps.mk and bsd.port.mk.

What I'm missing here (I may have overlooked it, it's the first time I  
have a look at reviews.freebsd.org) is a short explanation for the  
rationale of the design decissions (see my questions below).

The very first questions which come to my mind are:
  - Why is this embeded into the existing ports instead of having it  
as seperate ports?
  - Would seperate 64bit ports make the infrastructure less  
convoluted/complicated (KISS)? Yes, more ports, but the Mk  
infrsatructure is already at a complexity level where not much people  
are willing to touch it, and with this I fear it will be just too much.
  - Can I install 64bit and 32bit in parallel with this approach (I  
have to admit, it depends if the 64bit linuxulator is going to a  
different or the same /compat/linux directory but I haven't checked  
that, and it depends on how centos is build in this regard, so no idea  
if this makes sense)?
  - Is it a good idea to play around with the portname here (ok, this  
fits into the first question)? My concern here is that some ports  
played around with the port name in the past and got slowly converted  
to something without the name-mangling because we learned that it was  
not a good idea.

Apart from that I have to admin that I don't like that  
OVERRIDE_LINUX_BASE_PORT is used to check for 32bit or 64bit installs  
of the linux base. IMO it makes more sense to have a sort of "I want  
to have a XXbit linuxulator" variable: would be more end-user friendly  
and better self-explaining code (related to KISS).

> What I'd like to see is, moving the Mk/ infrastructure to the point
> where it can support future, upcoming architectures -- think CentOS 7,
> recent Fedora version (only the ones that are supported for more than
> 6 months), etc.
>
> I saw a working port of CentOS7 on GitHub, and a working Port of
> Fedora 19 somewhere... but I don't recall the links. Check

Can someone dig out the link for the CentOS7 port? 24th to 26th there  
is the DevSummit in Essen/Germany and I thought about the possibility  
to have a look at CentOS7 ports (if I don't find something less  
painful to work on) and it doesn't make sense to re-invent the wheel.

Bye,
Alexander.
-- 
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander at Leidinger.net: PGP 0xC773696B3BAC17DC
http://www.FreeBSD.org    netchild at FreeBSD.org  : PGP 0xC773696B3BAC17DC
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digitale PGP-Signatur
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-emulation/attachments/20150701/fca0742a/attachment.bin>