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

Re: A request from the NetBSD folks [ please discuss ]

On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 03:24:51PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> There are very important technical reasons for these decisions, not only
> "nomenclature correctness" stuff. Let me explain.
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 11:33:22AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > > 	uname -s:		GNU/KFreeBSD
> >                                 Uhm. I'd have to turn on my box to check
> > 				this. I think I may have left uname -s
> > 				alone, but changed uname -v to something
> > 				like Debian/NetBSD.
> A lot of programs tend to use uname for system identification. When they do
> that, they're primarily checking for libc features.
> - If uname -s prints "NetBSD", programs will assume NetBSD libc and you'll have
>   the most chances to compile your program on NetBSD libc.
> - If uname -s prints "GNU" or "GNU/*", programs will assume GNU libc. GNU is
>   aka GNU/Hurd, and is already stablished. GNU/* is what we've been using so
>   far for our Glibc-based ports.

Makes sense.

> So you should really use "NetBSD" for uname -s.
> > > 	config.guess triplet:	<arch>-(pc|unknown)-kfreebsd<version>-gnu
> >                                 <arch>-(pc|unknown)-netbsd-gnu
> And: <arch>-(pc|unknown)-knetbsd<version>-gnu
> Similarly to the above, you most likely want to match netbsd* checks, while
> we want to avoid them because of not having NetBSD libc.

Also makes sense.

> Anyway, changing the triplets at this stage is out of question for many
> reasons.

Convenient, then, that we probably don't need to :)

> > > 	Debian port name:	Debian GNU/KFreeBSD
> >                                 Debian GNU/NetBSD
> As said before, my suggestion is Debian GNU/KLNetBSD here.
> > 				Debian GNU NetBSD/i386
> Uhm.. that (without the slash) would mean NetBSD is a GNU project.

Mostly, that was a documentation of current practice, not a suggestion.
And is, as the whole point of this thread, up for discussion. :)

> > > 	Debian arch name:	freebsd-<arch>
> >                                 netbsd-<arch> (specfically, -i386)
> I've been using netbsd-<arch> too, for the reasons Guillem explained. Sorting
> this out will require long and painful discussion with the dpkg maintainers,
> but see below..
> > > The Debian arch name is not consistent, because the dpkg maintainers
> > > disagreed with the name change, and we didn't want to discuss it
> > > endlessly, we wanted the patches integrated to have a functional system.
> > 
> > Frankly, they're probably waiting to see who emerges from the smoke and
> > rubble as actually capable of being used as a working port...
> .. untill someone "emerges from the smoke", I don't find it viable to annoy
> the dpkg maintainers with that. Since the DEB_HOST_ARCH is not that important,
> I think we can postpone this for now.

Indeed. As long as it's documented, people are probably going to be
hand-selecting their APT entries, anyway, so it isn't such a big deal.

So. I propose the following, and, barring objections over the next week
or so, I'll take steps to update what I can to reflect this:

uname -s will remain 'NetBSD'.

uname -v will continue to have distinguishing features (I really wish the
NetBSD folks had working 'vendor' fields, so I could just fill them in;
maybe I should raise this on tech-user, as well, though I did at one point
and mostly got told that it has never worked; of course, I didn't offer any
patches, either, so I can't much complain).

The last part of the config triplet will remain '-netbsd-gnu' (origionally
this was supposed to be -netbsd-debian, as a vendor field, but the GNU
upstream preferred -gnu as a userland indicator, since that appears to be
what the suffix is really intended to reflect).

The Debian port name will be "Debian GNU/KLNetBSD(i386)" (or KNetBSD for
Robert's stuff, but that's not mine to decide :)

The Debian architecture will remain 'netbsd-i386', with the known issue
that we'll have to resolve this at some point with the dpkg maintainers and
the ftpmasters.

(And, in a week, barring any objections, I'll write a summary of what's
going on, and post it to debian-devel and probably mail it to Debian News).
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>                                        ,''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter                                        : :' :
(or Debian GNU/KLNetBSD(i386) porter, soon, perhaps                  `. `'

Attachment: pgp31tjI3aaaL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: