On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 05:42:09PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, Sep 04, 2002 at 08:29:18PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote: > > > 4) Is it feasible to just change the config scripts and require the new > > when trying to build on NetBSD systems? (presumably having them return > > 'i386-netbsd', much like they do for various Linuxes) > > I went with adding an entry to config.guess. It's easy enough to add a > test that looks for something that is only present in the Debian (if all > else fails, the uname output can be modified - it's a trivial kernel > patch), and then use i386-unknown-netbsd-debian (or something like that). > This is arguably the right thing to do - we probably want libtool to > produce libraries with three version numbers (or, alternatively, we can > fix all the packages that have these hardcoded into them...), and various > packages make assumptions based on finding a NetBSD system that aren't > true in our case. Having a new config string means we can fix this without > breaking things elsewhere, which means there's a better chance of upstream > accepting them. > > The only packages where this caused any great trouble were gcc and > binutils, and that was fairly easily rectified.
That's also a possibility, yes. Probably, in fact, the sanest thing I've heard yet. Has anyone mentioned it to doogie? If not, we should, and get his take on it (for dpkg purposes). And, er, whoever maintains autotools-dev these days, I suppose. I'm fine with a kernel patch, but given the sort of ugly that's already done in config.guess, I see no problem with checking for the existance of, say, /etc/debian_version instead, since that should exist on any Debian machine that is even remotely sanely set up, IIRC (and more things than just us will break, if it isn't there...) -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
