Re: dpkg architecture and official support
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 11:21:21PM +0100, Michael Weber wrote:
> * Joel Baker <lucifer@lightbearer.com> [2002-01-30T10:55-0700]:
> > Two or three times now, I've run into bugs that were wishlisted or outright
> > closed because we are not considered an Official Architecture (tm) yet; the
> > determining factor in this appears to be "are you listed in dpkg's arch
> > list?"
>
> Well, and that was mainly the reason why jimmy and me started the
> thread about the config.{guess,sub} issue earlier this week, after
> discussing it briefly on IRC.
>
> The problem AIUI is, you can't arbitrarily choose a name and put it
> into the archtable of dpkg. The first column part has to match the
> canonicalized arch name as produced by config.sub (modulo the
> "unknown" part). Here's a list of the *BSDs, currently in the
> unofficial archtable:
> i386-freebsd freebsd-i386 freebsd-i386
> i386-openbsd2.8 openbsd-i386 i386
> i386-netbsdelf1.5 netbsd-i386 i386
> i386-netbsdelf1.5 netbsd-i386 i386
> alpha-netbsd-debian netbsd-alpha alpha
>
> We need to reach a consensus here (that won't bite us in the future),
> and make sure the config.* guys like it, too, before we ask the dpkg
> maintainers to incorporate the changes. I mentioned some of the
> things to keep in mind in the "How to check for a GNU userland"
> thread.
Well, let me put it this way:
hurd-i386
Whether or not this changes long-term, I think our example *for today* is
already set. Shooting for a saner system long term is a laudable goal, but
won't let us get packaged fixed today.
> > Therefore, I think it's about time we were. I'm willing to talk to the
> > maintainer about it, but before I start down that road, I need to know
> > what, if any, patches were done to dpkg to get it to work in the tarball...
>
> I started with the patch from
>
> http://debian-bsd.sourceforge.net/dpkg/dpkg-patch
>
> and modified it a bit, so that dpkg now builds smoothly on my machine:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~michaelw/dpkg-bsd.patch
>
> Please note that this is BY NO MEANS a patch that should be submitted
> to the dpkg team! There are some hacks in it, that I didn't come
> around to fix properly.
Any objects to my working on that as a basis, and trying to produce
things which can go to dpkg and config folks, officially? Or would you
prefer to do it?
> Also, this version should build ok on a native NetBSD system (modulo
> some minor adjustments to INCLUDE_PATH AND LDFLAGS, and a link from
> curses.h to ncurses.h). If somebody is interested I can probably
> write up a more detailed guide.
--
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
Reply to: