Re: Multiple topics
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 11:47:10AM -0400, utsl@quic.net wrote:
>
> What I ran into with 5.0 was that there was a define that you set to
> enable compiling with gcc 3.x, and there were some #ifdef's to make it
> work. However, that define also enabled building gcc 3.x from the
> FreeBSD source tree, and that failed. Looked like the changes for it
> aren't quite finished merging in. That was only a week or two ago, so
> I'd wait a little while yet.
Fair enough. Waiting is fine, but knowing that it's a target is quite
helpful.
> These packages are pretty stable. I could upload source and binaries for
> it, if you've got your machine taking uploads. :-)
>
> The main trouble I've got with uploading is going through all the
> packages I've built, and sorting out which ones needed patching, if it's
> still necessary, and cleaning up patches where I can. I'm getting near the
> point where I should just run an autobuilder.
Autobuilders are good. I almost had one up for NetBSD, until I ran into
problems I couldn't reconcile with system headers (fixed in -current, but
I can't get that to work on my box, so...)
> Hmm, no. I didn't spend much time on it. It was some libc function
> missing, I think. That's usually the problem. The only reason I tried to
> build it was because ash depends on it, but ash built fine with
> FreeBSD's make. I had to have ash for makedev, because it won't work
> with bash. So ash becomes a base package on FreeBSD, at least for 4.x. :(
>
> At this point, I have a package I build from the FreeBSD source tree,
> that contains all the programs I need to build that source. The circular
> dependacy is a bit annoying, but that package solves a lot of headaches.
> (Would you believe it requires the FreeBSD version of find in the
> Makefiles?)
Differing base packages, while annoying, can be dealt with (albeit with
some effort, and it might be easier to try to convince FreeBSD to make it
/bin/sh friendly, I don't know; Debian stuff is *supposed* to not use any
bashisms, for example, in 'core' areas).
The problem is that, at least for me, I'm not trying to build - and don't
really want present - the majority of the BSD userspace. It won't cooperate
nicely with the Debian userspace, and it will utterly break a lot of things
on the underside (the inverse of the 'needs FreeBSD find' - LOTS of things
assume that they have the Debian-standard 'ls', 'find', etc - though at
least for find, they need to be declaring a dependancy on the findutils
package).
Having a make-kpkg equivalent with tools to build a kernel (and, for us,
libc and similar stuff) is not out of whack, but I'd say those need to be
kept fairly separate. The BSD make stuff, on the other hand, is used in a
LOT of stuff outside the kernel.
Of course, that doesn't mean anything but the kernel makes use of the non-
compatible extensions. Hrrrrf.
--
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: