Paul Emsley <paule@chem.gla.ac.uk> writes: > >>>>> "MB" == Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes: > > MB> Can you please try to port [mcookie]? > > Actually, it was very easy, I changed __linux__ to __GNU__ in > mcookie.c and typed make. Tada! (I think also that prngd > should be used as one of the RNG, but I didn't include it). FYI, alpha.gnu.org has an old port of util-linux in <URL:ftp://alpha.gnu.org/pub/gnu/hurd/debian/dists/unstable/main/source/base/> > I suppose that I can do some fiddling to build more stuff (but > fdisk is looking difficult). Our main focus is on GNU parted which somewhat supersedes fdisk. > But I do not understand the protocol. What if I can get it to > build 80% of the binaries, with the other things producing > errors? It is possible to query the architecture one is building for (see dpkg-architecture(1)) in debian/rules, and modify the build process accordingly. That's easy when it just means to call configure with --disable-foo instead of --enable-foo. For simple Makefiles you may also get away by calling e.g. "make PROGRAMS='foo bar baz'" so that only these get built. A util-linux package that does build 80% of the binaries is better than 0%. Some of them are useless, anyway, because they are genuine linux utils. In the long term, all the useful ones should probably migrate out of util-linux, but that's more of a political than a technical work. -- Robbe
Attachment:
signature.ng
Description: PGP signature