On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 03:44:12AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> after looking at your TODO, i have a pair of comments on your plan:
>
> - i think site.def is a more adequate place for debian-specific stuff
> see what the upstream docs say about site.def (INSTALL-X.org, section 3.5)
I disagree and do not support that approach. Debian is a vendor. And,
strictly speaking, Debian is a meta-vendor.
> - you're moving stuff into debian.cf that isn't actualy debian-specific.
> when i said "gnu-common.cf" i meant stuff common to GNUish systems
> (mostly related to Glibc and userland), but not debian-specific. [1]
> I think we should take care to do these modifications in a way that they are
> acceptable for upstream. So if you split into gnu-common.cf the common
> stuff that isn't debian-specific, and into debian.cf (or site.def) the
> debian-specific stuff, we'd just have to send gnu-common.cf to upstream
> and maintain debian.cf/site.def in debian.
Here's what I think:
The Linux, Hurd, and *BSD .cf files should be split into kernel-space
and user-space files.
E.g.,
gnu-userspace.cf
bsd-userspace.cf
linux.cf would #include <gnu-userspace.cf>. This can be conditionalized
based on a de-facto vendor define (like LinuxDistribution) if there is
ever a Linux distribution with a BSD userspace. Other stuff in this
file would be restricted to kernel-specific stuff (which isn't much).
hurd.cf would #include <gnu-userspace.cf> and contain #defines relevant
to the Hurd's kernel architecture.
{Free,Net,Open}BSD.cf would have conditionalized #defines similar to the
way linux.cf already does. On a Debian system, FreeBSD.cf would
#include <gnu-userspace.cf>; otherwise, #include <bsd-userspace.cf>.
--
G. Branden Robinson | Mob rule isn't any prettier just
Debian GNU/Linux | because you call your mob a
branden@debian.org | government.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpC40kqAcCI0.pgp
Description: PGP signature