On Thu, 14 Dec 2017 09:15:35 -0500 "Pedro Giffuni" <p...@freebsd.org> said
On 12/13/17 22:31, blubee blubeeme wrote:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Pedro Giffuni <p...@freebsd.org
<mailto:p...@freebsd.org>> wrote:
Hello;
On 13/12/2017 21:11, Chris H wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 19:56:24 -0500 "Pedro Giffuni"
<p...@freebsd.org> said
On 12/10/17 14:55, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
11.12.2017 2:22, Pedro Giffuni пишет:
Hello guys;
I would like to attempt a port for WPS Office (AKA
Kingsoft Office):
http://wps-community.org/
Are there guidelines for linux ports? I couldn't find
much details in the
handbook.
In particular, how do you handle when the pkg-plist is
different for i386
and amd64?
Some ports use pkg-plist.${ARCH} but I don't know how
those work.
Just have "USES=linux", "USE_LINUX_RPM=yes" and make
these two files
pkg-plist.i386 and pkg-plist.amd64
and they are used automatically. Or you could duplicate
a magic from
/ports/Mk/Uses/linux.mk <http://linux.mk> in your Makefile:
PLIST?= ${PKGDIR}/pkg-plist.${LINUX_ARCH:S/x86_64/amd64/}
For details, read Porter's Handbook:
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/
<https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/porters-handbook/>
The handbook has no information about "USE_LINUX_RPM=yes".
If I set that it appears the ports framework will ignore
MASTER_SITES.
Should I dig into the MK framework to see how to change
the repository or should I use the .tar.xz distribution
instead? :(.
I'm not sure. But would having a look at the way
emulators/linux_base-c(6|7)
provide some clues?
Not really but I think I found something in Mk/Uses/linux.mk
<http://linux.mk>:
For the case of USE_LINUX_RPM it is supposed to not do anything
when MASTER_SITES is defined but it is somewhat messy, and somehow
it always uses ${MASTER_SITE_CENTOS_LINUX}. Any port that uses RPM
but not the Centos repositories?
Just a thought, and hope it helps!
Thanks, I just have to keep digging :(.
Pedro.
The linux packaging is okay but I'd recommend learning how the porting
process and not just wrapping up a linux binary in FreeBSD.
Well ... of course if I had the source code I would not be dealing RPMs
for the linuxulator.
Software can be free but not include source code. It can still be
desirable for FreeBSD.
The main reason for that is you can port your way into a corner that
relies on very Linux specific stuff that there's just no solution for
yet nor will there be one unless you port the entire Linux kernel to
FreeBSD.
Which is why we have a linuxulator.
OK Pedro, just so I know I understand your intentions correctly;
You need a way to unpack all the .rpm's, and separate them by
$arch -- 32bit -vs- 64bit, so that you can create the correct pkg-plist(s)
for each of them. Is that correct?
I'll await your response before a solution for that.
--Chris
Pedro.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
