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

Re: config.{sub,guess} and NetBSD

On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 05:42:09PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 08:29:18PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> > 4) Is it feasible to just change the config scripts and require the new
> >    when trying to build on NetBSD systems? (presumably having them return
> >    'i386-netbsd', much like they do for various Linuxes)
> I went with adding an entry to config.guess. It's easy enough to add a 
> test that looks for something that is only present in the Debian (if all 
> else fails, the uname output can be modified - it's a trivial kernel 
> patch), and then use i386-unknown-netbsd-debian (or something like that). 
> This is arguably the right thing to do - we probably want libtool to 
> produce libraries with three version numbers (or, alternatively, we can 
> fix all the packages that have these hardcoded into them...), and various 
> packages make assumptions based on finding a NetBSD system that aren't 
> true in our case. Having a new config string means we can fix this without 
> breaking things elsewhere, which means there's a better chance of upstream 
> accepting them.
> The only packages where this caused any great trouble were gcc and 
> binutils, and that was fairly easily rectified.

That's also a possibility, yes. Probably, in fact, the sanest thing
I've heard yet. Has anyone mentioned it to doogie? If not, we should,
and get his take on it (for dpkg purposes). And, er, whoever maintains
autotools-dev these days, I suppose.

I'm fine with a kernel patch, but given the sort of ugly that's already
done in config.guess, I see no problem with checking for the existance of,
say, /etc/debian_version instead, since that should exist on any Debian
machine that is even remotely sanely set up, IIRC (and more things than
just us will break, if it isn't there...)
Joel Baker                           System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com              http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/

Reply to: