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

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

ObListPolicy: I'm not subscribed to debian-bsd, please Cc: me in all
replies that you think may concern me.

On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 21:58, Joel Baker wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 07:49:43PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 23:39, Joel Baker wrote:
> > 
> > > 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.
The only patches that've recently (within the last year) been applied to
libtool have been to support knetbsd-gnu, in fact they removed any
support for netbsd-gnu which would get treated under netbsd* now.

So provided netbsd-gnu works the same as pure netbsd, there shouldn't be
a problem, but if it works differently there'll need to be some changes.

> 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).
This'd be a config.guess thing (in autotools-dev) which would decide
whether a system is *-netbsd-gnu (your work) or *-knetbsd*-gnu (Robert's

Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: