and what about NetBSD on qemu ? sure you'll get speed loss, but you
won't have to worry about inconsistencies ...
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Jason Beaudoin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick and Ted,
>
> Thank you for the responses.
>
>> The warning never kills the process. That warning is generated by
>> OpenBSD's modified ld(1). It looks like the error is in a shellscript
>> (perhaps `nbmake`?). Probably something is getting generated wrong
>> because OpenBSD doesn't work the way NetBSD's tools expect, but it's
>> hard to say any more.
>
> awesome, and you are correct, nbmake was the offending process.
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Ted Unangst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 7/17/08, Jason Beaudoin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> has anyone attempted (maybe with success) building a NetBSD toolchain
>>> on OpenBSD?
>>
>> This would fall more into the NetBSD camp. After all, it's their toolchain.
>
> indeed.. I sought out assistance in #netbsd, getting only childish responses.
>
>
>>> make: illegal argument to -d option -- e
>>> usage: make [-BeiknPqrSst] [-D variable] [-d flags] [-f makefile]
>>> [-I directory] [-j max_jobs] [-m directory] [-V variable]
>>> [NAME=value] [target ...]
>>> dir.o(.text+0x54e): In function 'DirExpandCurly':
>>> : warning: strcpy() is almost always misused, please use strlcpy()
>>> /bin/sh: syntax error: `(' unexpected
>>
>> This means your executable was not identified, and the kernel passed
>> it off as a shell script.
>>
>
> with some help from #netbsd-code and ktrace, we were able to determine
> that nbmake uses uname to get information about the system.
>
> This build script breaks the posix standards with uname -p, which on
> NetBSD, prints MACHINE_ARCH.. where as uname -p on OpenBSD prints the
> extended processor information.. this is where that extraneous ( came
> from.
>
> Changing uname -p to -m in the build script got me past this error,
> but I now have others to sort through :)
>
> I'll post here if I get this working, simply for the archives.
>
>
> Thanks again Ted and Nick.
>
>
> regards,
> ~Jason
