svn commit: r185982 - head/usr.sbin/sysinstall

[Roman Divacky]

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 05:46:12PM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Alfred Perlstein <alfred at freebsd.org> wrote:
> > * Ken Smith <kensmith at cse.Buffalo.EDU> [081226 16:13] wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2008-12-26 at 15:46 -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >> > Does this mean that the user has to find the "Linux" package in the
> >> > "add packages" area now?  If so, that seems a bit complicated to
> >> > get started.  There's a LOT of packages.  Pardon if I'm missing something
> >> > obvious here.
> >>
> >> Yes, sort of.
> >>
> >> I've asked portmgr@ to help with setting things up so we've got a couple
> >> of new meta packages that help users set up a usable workstation
> >> relatively painlessly.  They've said we can work together with the Gnome
> >> and KDE folks to try and get that set up.  I'm not sure at this point if
> >> Linux emulation will be part of that or not, we haven't gotten quite
> >> that far yet.  And we'll do something to make those meta-packages
> >> relatively easy to find.  For example without something along those
> >> lines a user may just select the "gnome2" metapackage thinking they'll
> >> get a usable workstation but at least as of the last time I did
> >> something like that you don't quite wind up with a usable workstation
> >> (xorg-server is missing for example :-/).
> >>
> >> That said this has sort of been threatened for quite a while now, and
> >> having sysinstall not care about any packages before it hits what is
> >> currently its "Do you want to browse all the packages" section is needed
> >> if we're talking about not including pre-built packages with the release
> >> itself and that sort of thing.  We're just setting it up so all packages
> >> get treated as packages instead of some being intertwined in earlier
> >> phases of sysinstall.
> >
> > OK, that makes sense.  Please track it though, it would be bad to wind up
> > "hiding" Linux compat from users under a huge package selection.
> >
> > thanks,
> > --
> > - Alfred Perlstein
> 
>     Yes, but it'd be nicer for linux compatibility to point to actual
> working linux emulators instead of long-defunct packages (the Redhat
> emulation package -- bleh).
>     I'm all for improving the linux compat layer packaging -- thanks Ken!
> -Garrett

we've switched to 2.6 emulation on default in -current so we are able to
use newer fedora distro. the problem here is that there is no release
freebsd with default 2.6 emulation, hence the default port stays at fc4

that's going to change