On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:47:29PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was able to download Joel's chroot and unpack it onto a NetBSD
> installation. It is more complete than I thought -- great work, Joel!
>
> I observed these problems:
>
> * apt-get update segfaults every time
This is... eh. It comes and goes, on that version. I think this was
supposed to be better in the newer versions, but I haven't beaten on them
yet.
> * ed is missing, and when I tried to build it, it segfaulted during
> tests.
It needs to link against libiberty, or it segfaults; I don't know why, but
that does fix it. There's an open bug on ed describing more of this; anyone
wanting to dig into it should feel free to do so :)
> * There is no procps or NetBSD equivolent.
Not yet, no. These are all kernel-bound, so they have to be built from the
kernel package setup (which is still a work in progress). Unless someone
has come up with more magic than I know of...
> I have built a new binutils and am trying to build a new gcc (it is
> failing on some of its torture tests tough, sigh) 3.3.x (same as in
> Debian.) Hopefully that will help, dunno... If I get the stuff
> working, I'll post it. Let me know if you have any hints.
Check the debian-gcc and debian-bsdarchives for the results of earlier
torture test runs; it has always failed on a couple, so it only matters if
we have regressed (which is possible). In theory, the Debian GCC packages
*should* support it directly, unless things have changed significantly
between the version of GCC in my apt archive (which is possible), since
that was built more or less straight off of the GCC package at the time.
If you do find issues, let me know; I have CVS (soon SVN) commit access
to the Debian GC stuff. :)
> Also, are there any packages that I absolutely should not build -- ones
> that have NetBSD-specific patches applied?
The one thing I remember that you need, that I don't have patches up for,
and which will cause a number of things to go a bit weird in failing to
detect it as a the Debian sub-flavor of NetBSD, is that your uname -v
*must* have a certain value, involving 'Debian/NetBSD' as part of the full
name.
I'll try to sit down and pull this out of stuff on the current build box,
later today or tomorrow... sorry, forgot I probably hadn't mentioned this
earlier :/
--
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
Debian GNU/NetBSD(i386) porter : :' :
`. `'
`-
Attachment:
pgpbEG8ESjRB8.pgp
Description: PGP signature