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. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
