[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: NetBSD packages

On Sun, Jul 08, 2001 at 12:35:00AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I've succesfully built libncurses packages using a combination of the 
> source from the BSD ports tree and the Debian build scripts. 

Great work!

> apt (should be trivial, I just haven't got round to it yet due to nothing 
>   else depending on it)

Yes, it can wait until there are optional packages to install with it.

> base-passwd (requires merging of various BSD bits)
> console-tools/data (probably needs to be replaced by BSD analogues)

> e2fsprogs (need to build an analogous ufsprogs package - does it need to 
>   provide: e2fsprogs?)

No need.  Anybody who wants can do them, and they'll be welcome,
but they're not on the critical path.  Of course there are 
equivalent BSD programs for many of them, and the package
might be called "ufsprogs".

> kernel-image (obviously needs to be packaged NetBSD code)
> ldso (package NetBSD one)
> libc6 (package NetBSD one)
> libnewt (not looked at yet)
> libpam (package netBSD version?)

Does NetBSD support PAM?  

> libreadline (should be easy enough)
> libstdc++ (NetBSD version)

Is this needed for any other core packages (besides Apt)?
Gcc-3 comes with its own libstdc++; maybe the project should
use gcc-3 from the outset.

> login (not really looked at - NetBSD version?)
> mount (NetBSD version)
> netbase (merge NetBSD code?)
> procps (NetBSD version)
> sysvinit (need to decide what we're doing with this one - use BSD init and 
>   lose ability to switch runlevels, or port/write a System V style init)

Sysvinit is necessary to be compatible with existing Debian packages.

> util-linux (NetBSD analogues)

Of course this is called util-netbsd, instead, with more-or-less
equivalent BSD programs.

> whiptail (not looked at)
> So that's 15 more packages until we have a pretty complete base system. 
> Most of these shouldn't be too difficult for anyone with any degree of 
> packaging experience, with the compilation ones being the most awkward 
> (the analogues of util-linux aren't all handily packaged together in
> *BSD - someone needs to pull them together and write semi-decent build 
> scripts.) If nobody else has any sort of development setup up yet I'll 
> take a look at as many of the rest of these as possible over the next
> week or so.

For the rest of us, credit is slipping away as Matthew gets the
key work done.  Better get busy...

Nathan Myers
ncm at cantrip dot org

Reply to: