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: