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

Re: Changes in formal naming for NetBSD porting effort(s)

On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 07:49:43PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> ObListPolicy: I'm not subscribed to debian-bsd, please Cc: me in all
> replies that you think may concern me.
> On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 23:39, Joel Baker wrote:
> > For the porting effort formerly known as "Debian GNU/NetBSD" or "Debian
> > GNU NetBSD/i386", the following four identifiers will be used:
> > 
> > 1) 'uname -s' will be 'NetBSD' (this is unchanged).
> > 
> > 2) 'uname -v' will have the name 'Debian' in it at an appropriate place,
> >    so that it is possible to determine a full set of system information
> >    solely from uname. (This is somewhat flexible due to possible changes
> >    in the NetBSD implementation of the concept of 'vendor').
> > 
> > 3) The GNU config triple will have '-netbsd-gnu' as it's third part.
> >    (This is unchanged - and don't blame me for a 4-part triplet. I didn't
> >    start it, merely maintained consistancy with -linux-gnu).
> > 
> > 4) The Debian port name will become 'Debian GNU/KLNetBSD(i386)'[1].
> > 
> > -----
> > 
> > [1] i386 target, Kernel+Libc of NetBSD, GNU userland, Debian distribution
> > 
> > I'm not entirely certain what else, if anything, is required to make these
> > changes (except updating the web pages, which will obviously have to wait
> > until the normal method of doing so has been restored), since the origional
> > decision on the port name was relatively informal.
> > 
> There might be some changes required to autotools-dev and libtool to
> support this platform, depending how they currently decide what makes
> -netbsd-gnu.

Present in autotools-dev as of 20021130-1 (2002-11-30 CVS grab). I believe
the libtool patches have been accepted, at least by the Debian package, for
some time, but I'd have to go back and double-check whether the changes
were only in my patched copy, the Debian official version, or upstream at
this point.

They work for the port - the thing they might *not* work for, which I'd
have to review and probably cross-check with Robert, is whether they won't
accidentally start thinking that KNetBSD systems are KLNetBSD (or whatever
it ends up being, augh).

I really need to sit down and write a proposal / patches for NetBSD to
support the 'vendor' sysctl tree, that can be checked usefully. Since that
would be the canonical way of testing this (a 'debian' vendor could have a
sub-field indicating which sort of port it was).
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>                                        ,''`.
Debian GNU/KLNetBSD(i386) porter                                     : :' :
                                                                     `. `'

Attachment: pgp6utCcSoLFT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: