the GNU General Public License. The following is the portion of
the license which grants permission to distribute these in binary
form:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on
it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the
terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of
the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding
machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under
the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily
used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least
three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more
than your cost of physically performing source distribution,
a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source
code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2
above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;
or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the
offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This
alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution
and only if you received the program in object code or
executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection
b above.)
[...]
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are
not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
Since this port does not satisfy these conditions the license does
not give us permission to distribute the binaries.
I brought up this issue with portmgr but after 73 days I have seen
no response.
little bit and allows to proceed to a more recent linux_base from
a stable (read as: the major bugs should be ironed out or identified
and most linux ports build just fine) source.
It also allows to ship 4.11 with a working linuxolator (the EOLed
linux_base is marked forbidden because of a security hole).
This is a major update, please read UPDATING (and CHANGES if you
develop linux ports).
Changes:
- change the default linux_base from v7 to v8
- add a newer freetype to linux_base-8 for nicer fonts display [1]
- don't let cpio use hardlinks in the linux_base-8 port to quiet some
warnings in some cases [2]
- fix a cut&past error in the linux_base-8 pkg-install script [3]
- convert the binary knob "USE_LINUX" to a version specifier, e.g.
USE_LINUX=<value> specifies a dependency upon
emulators/linux_base-<value>, exceptions are a value of "7" (which
does what you want and adds a dependency to linux_base) and any
value without a corresponding port in
PORTSDIR/emulators/linux_base-<value> (which adds a dependency to
the default linux_base)
- don't implicitly add USE_LINUX with the USE_LINUX_PREFIX knob,
this allows us to use the USE_LINUX_PREFIX knob for linux_base and
paves the way for splitting up future linux base ports into
individual pieces
- remove RESTRICTED from some GPL licensed ports, even when we only
distribute binaries, we get them from official linux sites, so
anyone can grab them there if he needs to
- add a dependency upon the linux X11 bits where necessary (based upon
guesswork)
- don't use USE_X_PREFIX in some linux ports since it adds a dependency
to the FreeBSD X11 libs, as a workaround use PREFIX?= (the clean
solution would be to remove the implicit USE_XLIB from USE_X_PREFIX)
- bump the portrevision of the linux ports ("better safe than sorry"
algorithm)
- pass maintainership of the important linux infrastructure to a
mailinglist, hijack freebsd-emulation@ for this purpose (if somebody
doesn't like this: tell us your bikeshed color at freebsd-emulation@,
my color would be "linuxolator@" in case someone cares...)
- add a pkg-install script for linux-fontconfig, but don't use it;
everything should work without it (the FreeBSD fc-cache program should
do all the work), but in case we need it we just need to decomment the
pkg-install part in the Makefile
- fix some dependencies
- fix some bugs
- add some static plists
- unbreak the ports with dependecies to more than one linux_base
This also fixes some ports which are marked BROKEN because of dependencies
to v7 and v8 of linux_base at the same time.
Known bugs:
- the linux-mesa and linux-devtools ports install libGL*.so symlinks
- some "minor" plist bugs (e.g. ld.so.{conf,cache} are modified by
the linux X11 port, so linx_Base-8 moans at deinstall time)
Future work (interested souls should coordinate with freebsd-emulation@):
- add some kind of USE_LINUX_X11 knob to streamline the X11 dependencies,
or modify the behavior of USE_XLIB in the USE_LINUX case
AFAIK trevor has some patches.
- make USE_XLIB and USE_X_PREFIX orthogonal to be able to get rid of
the PREFIX?= workaround in some linux ports
Should be discussed/coordinated on/with x11@.
- move the RPM bits from x11-toolkits/linux-gtk/Makefile to PORTSDIR/Mk/
- update to a more recent linux base
PR: 69997, 70539 (and maybe others)
Discussed with/on: java@, x11@, trevor, portmgr
Tested by: mezz, portmgr, pointyhat
RPM hunted down by: Joseph Gelinas <scirocco@tasam.com> [1]
Requested by: portmgr [2]
Submitted by: kris [3]
Approved by: portmgr
outdated files were removed from the FTP sites. Use newest
XFree86-devel and glibc-devel on both Alpha and i386; newest
kernel-source and libstdc++-devel on Alpha; and newest cpp, gcc,
gcc-c++, gcc-g77 and libstdc++-devel on i386.
Generate packing list from a fake installation. Note GNU GPL
restriction. Speed up fetching of updates for the Alpha. Take
maintainership.
Approved by: portmgr
script so that the behaviour of a package installation matches
that of a port installation identically.
Note that, in the package case, we already have a valid run-time
linker hints file for Linux.
It now also works when the linuxulator is compiled into the kernel (using
options COMPAT_LINUX). Due to my misunderstanding, PR/12918 has been closed
for the wrong reasons. My apologies to the originator.
PR: 12918
Originator: Dean Lombardo <dlombardo@excite.com>
linux_devel and linux-devel. Both will be removed from the ports collection
at the proper time.
linux_devtools uses Red Hat 5.2 packages to install a basic development
environment. There's no functional difference between linux-devel and
linux_devtools. The name of the latter is preferred over the name of the
former.
This port is repository copied from linux_devel.
New name by: obrien
Reviewed by: hoek
Supervised by: asami
===> Building package for linux_devel-0.2
Creating package /usr/ports/packages/All/linux_devel-0.2.tgz
Registering depends: linux_lib-2.5.
Creating gzip'd tar ball in '/usr/ports/packages/All/linux_devel-0.2.tgz'
tar: can't add file usr/lib/libfbm.so.1 : No such file or directory
tar: can't add file usr/lib/libjpeg.so.1 : No such file or directory
tar: can't add file usr/lib/libtiff.so.1 : No such file or directory
/usr/sbin/pkg_create: tar command failed with code 256
For the record, pkg_delete also gave me the following errors:
: cannot delete specified file `/a/tmp/hoek/usr/i486-linuxaout/lib/ldscripts - it is a directory!
: cannot delete specified file `/a/tmp/hoek/usr/include/linux' - it is a directory!
: cannot delete specified file `/a/tmp/hoek/usr/include/asm' - it is a directory!
There wouldn't happen to be a problem with pkg/PLIST, would there?
