Re: X Strike Force SVN commit: rev 183 - in branches/4.3.0/sid/debian: . patches
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 11:33:02AM +0900, ISHIKAWA Mutsumi wrote:
>
> I don't think so.
> site.def uses site local specific setting.
> Distribution common settings should not into this file.
ok.
> >> - you're moving stuff into debian.cf that isn't actualy debian-specific.
> >> when i said "gnu-common.cf" i meant stuff common to GNUish systems
> >> (mostly related to Glibc and userland), but not debian-specific. [1]
> >>
> >> I think we should take care to do these modifications in a way that they are
> >> acceptable for upstream. So if you split into gnu-common.cf the common
> >> stuff that isn't debian-specific, and into debian.cf (or site.def) the
> >> debian-specific stuff, we'd just have to send gnu-common.cf to upstream
> >> and maintain debian.cf/site.def in debian.
>
> Please define `waht is GNUish system' and `waht is GNUish systems
> common stuff', I can not image them.
Any system that is majoritarily based on components from the GNU system.
For me, GCC, binutils, Glibc and coreutils is what comes to mind here.
Please look at the diff between gnu.cf and gnu-freebsd.cf; they're really
almost the same file only a few lines are changing. If all the common lines
(which is most of the file) can be split into a file common to all Debian
ports, i'd be very happy with that.
However, note that:
- this changes are not debian-specific, and could be sent upstream in a
file common to all "gnuish" systems
- since there are debian ports targetted at using another libc, and
even debian ports targetted at using non-gnu userland, it might be
interesting to have a file for all the "gnuish" stuff (not debian-specific),
and a separate file for the debian-specific stuff. that way only "gnuish"
ports would include that file.
> Currently linux.cf already have Distribution specific part,
> and most of all of entries are shared linux.cf and gnu.cf, netbsd.cf
> and gfbsd.cf. So, I'll happy to split off them to common file easy to
> maintain them.
Sure, splitting the Distribution-specific part is a good idea.
P.S: argh, if we just had autoconf :>
--
Robert Millan
Reply to: