Re: dpkg support for Solaris
On 16/11/2011 04:00, "Guillem Jover" <guillem@debian.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 15:22:46 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Nov 2011, Andrew Stormont wrote:
>> > diff --git a/lib/dpkg/md5.c b/lib/dpkg/md5.c
>> > index 3da18c9..5e9f311 100644
>> > --- a/lib/dpkg/md5.c
>> > +++ b/lib/dpkg/md5.c
>> > @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@
>> > * MD5Context structure, pass it to MD5Init, call MD5Update as
>> > * needed on buffers full of bytes, and then call MD5Final, which
>> > * will fill a supplied 16-byte array with the digest.
>> > + *
>> > + * Copyright © 2011 Nexenta Systems Inc. All rights reserved.
>> > */
>>
>> That file is in the public domain and it's best if we keep it that way,
>>so
>> please accept the same and don't claim any copyright on it.
>
>This does not matter any more given the pushed changes, but in
>addition I don't think these changes are copyrightable, as they are
>just a symbol rename (at least according to the GNU maintainers doc).
>
>> Hum, C99 is not a requirement to build dpkg. Some features are required
>> but those standard types are currently not part of it (see README and
>> doc/coding-style.txt). So maybe it's better to add the required typedefs
>> specifically for Solaris?
>
>They are assumed to be present, and checked by dpkg-compiler.m4. Those
>are not on the doc, because they don't really need compiler support,
>and can be easily mapped to other types by configure.
>
>> That said I don't really know why Guillem did not mandate C99 in its
>> entirety.
>
>Because C99 is not yet fully implemented by many compilers (not even gcc).
>
>> > +#ifdef HAVE_SYS_CDEFS
>> > #include <sys/cdefs.h>
>> > +#endif
>>
>> So this test should probably be changed into something else. Not sure
>> what though... this header is provided by glibc but is not glibc
>>specific
>> apparently.
>>
>> If we can't find anything better, we could go with this I guess:
>> #if !defined(__sun)
>> #include <sys/cdefs.h>
>> #endif
>
>It's a BSDism and it's not needed.
>
>> > @@ -31,6 +33,7 @@
>> > # define OSHurd
>> > #elif defined(__sun)
>> > # define OSsunos
>> > +# undef HAVE_KVM_H
>> > #elif defined(OPENBSD) || defined(__OpenBSD__)
>> > # define OSOpenBSD
>> > #elif defined(hpux)
>>
>> Why? Does kvm.h exist on Solaris and is it something totally unrelated?
>
>kvm implementations vary slightly from system to system, given that
>they expose kernel internal structures to user-land.
On Solaris kvm.h exposes an interface for managing virtual memory.
>
>regards,
>guillem
Reply to: