On Sat, 6 Nov 1999, Jules Bean wrote: > You don't say which dpkg version you ported. There are, I believe, some > significant differences in recent versions.
Ah, sorry. It was dpkg 1.4.1.19 from CVS repo. I'm afraid dpkg 1.4.1 is stable version and couldn't be modified. Should I take experimental dpkg 1.5.1? > > * dpkg detects an architecture by executing 'gcc -print-libgcc-file-name'. > > This is wrong on FreeBSD, because this file is simply /usr/lib/libgcc.a > > I suggest if this check is failed, dpkg should have a reasonable default > > value. This value could be set by ./configure --with-default-arch=XXX. > > I've done workaround in dpkg-gencontrol, etc. scripts but modifing > > dpkg binary is necessary. > > Yup. Something is wrong there. I suppose if we're using configure, we > should use configure's host-type stuff. I think it is done for cross compiled packages. Is any possible solution for this incopability? It makes dpkg useless for other platforms. > > * debian/rules file uses /usr/bin/make program. This is correct if make > > is GNU make! I suggest the rules file should use i.e. /usr/bin/dpkg-make > > which is a symlink to real GNU make (at FreeBSD this is > > /usr/local/bin/gmake). > > dpkg is written for the GNU system. So, it assumes GNU make, GNU mv, GNU > xargs, etc... > > Removing these dependencies is desirable in some ways, but may make things > more complex.. I think the dpkg as standalone program should be portable to system without GNU utils (like mv, xargs). Of course GNU make is required, but it could be easly resolved by /usr/bin/dpkg-make symlink. -- Piotr "Dexter" Roszatycki mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
