On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Ian Jackson <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think i386-unknown-rumpxen is probably more correct, as it is not >> strictly netbsd even if it is netbsd like. > > I have two counterarguments to that. > > Firstly, that causes config.sub to fail with: > checking host system type... Invalid configuration > `i386-unknown-rumpxen': system `rumpxen' not recognized > We need something that will work with existing configure scripts. > Now `i386-rumpxen-none' would work, but: > > Secondly, the point of this is to cause a configure script of a naive > userland program (which is what we are trying to compile) to do the > right thing. The rumpuserxen application environment is much more > like NetBSD than anything else. It has a NetBSD libc and a good > number of the NetBSD system calls. > > If a program is choosing between multiple implementation/interfaces to > try to use, then if it chooses NetBSD there is a good chance that it > will build and even a hope that it will work. > > "none" is much less accurate.
Ok, seems reasonable. Justin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft _______________________________________________ rumpkernel-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rumpkernel-users
