Re: Fedora developer interested in DMA; query about build process
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Simon 'corecode' Schubert corec...@fs.ei.tum.de wrote: Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: I plan to do that (looking at the other Linux port right now too). I already have a custom Makefile for cpdup anyway, and before I tried using bmake I already tried using gcc by hand. I must say the bundled rules in Dragonfly's make are quite impressive. I don't think the other port is nicely done. The sources also changed massively lately. Hope this one is more to your satisfaction -- http://bugs.dragonflybsd.org/issue1555 I wrote it with the intention of (eventually) getting it merged, so Linux distributions could just compile DMA out-of-the-box (well, after installing BSD yacc). There are some questions concerning BSD-Linux differences that I raised on the bug submission, since I'm not sure about those parts of the changes I made. Your input is welcomed -- this is my biggest change to a BSD-style program to date, so don't assume I know what I'm doing :) Regards, -- Michel Alexandre Salim Fedora Project
Re: Fedora developer interested in DMA; query about build process
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Matthew Dillondil...@apollo.backplane.com wrote: I like the concept of throwing together an export hierarchy, but it might be too much maintainance to physically separate the git components out within the primary repo. Using git submodules, the maintenance required should be almost zero, I should think: http://progit.org/book/ch6-6.html The only change needed is at first clone, and I guess at every update: one would need to check the list of submodules currently available, and initialize any that has not been initialized yet. Regards, -- Michel Salim
Re: Fedora developer interested in DMA; query about build process
Oh, a tarball iso good enough, thanks. -- Michel On Sep 3, 2009 3:34 PM, Simon apos;corecodeapos; Schubert corec...@fs.ei.tum.de wrote: Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Matthew Dillondil...@apollo.ba... I don't want to use submodules, because they change the work flow in the main repo. My question to you is: would you like to see a broken out repo, or would a tarball good enough for you? cheers simon
Re: Fedora developer interested in DMA; query about build process
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:59 AM, Simon 'corecode' Schubertcorec...@fs.ei.tum.de wrote: I have question about the build process, though. I've patched some files to take care of BSD-isms -- having to define __DECONST in dma.h and removing the reference to st.st_mtimespec in dma.c -- but I'm stuck building. I'm using bmake, and get the following: I think the best would be if you'd write a generic non-BSD makefile. It is a simple enough build process. I plan to do that (looking at the other Linux port right now too). I already have a custom Makefile for cpdup anyway, and before I tried using bmake I already tried using gcc by hand. I must say the bundled rules in Dragonfly's make are quite impressive. -- Michel Alexandre Salim
Re: Fedora developer interested in DMA; query about build process
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:03 AM, Sascha Wildners...@online.de wrote: Michel Alexandre Salim schrieb: Where is aliases_parse.h supposed to be generated? We do basically: yacc -d -o aliases_parse.c aliases_parse.y Aha, thanks! This is where our bmake went wrong -- rather than specifying the output file, it let a default file be created and then rename it. But missed renaming the header file... If Arch Linux is interested in this too, would it be feasible to maintain this in a Git submodule that can be individually cloned? If that's inconvenient, I will of course gladly continue cloning the entire Dfly repository to get to this :) -- Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora developer interested in DMA; query about build process
Hello, I saw DMA mentioned recently at the DfBSD Digest, and it just so happened that there was a recent discussion in fedora-devel about removing sendmail from the base install. An overriding concern was that it would break reporting by tools like cron, even though most desktop users will not see the reports anyway; but it looks like DMA would fit the bill perfectly as a local-delivery MTA. I have question about the build process, though. I've patched some files to take care of BSD-isms -- having to define __DECONST in dma.h and removing the reference to st.st_mtimespec in dma.c -- but I'm stuck building. I'm using bmake, and get the following: yacc -d aliases_parse.y mv y.tab.c aliases_parse.c cc -pipe -g -I/home/michel/checkouts/upstream/dfly/libexec/dma -MD -MF aliases_parse.d -MT aliases_parse.o -c aliases_parse.c lex aliases_scan.l mv lex.yy.c aliases_scan.c cc -pipe -g -I/home/michel/checkouts/upstream/dfly/libexec/dma -MD -MF aliases_scan.d -MT aliases_scan.o -c aliases_scan.c aliases_scan.l:4:27: error: aliases_parse.h: No such file or directory aliases_scan.l: In function ‘yylex’: aliases_scan.l:14: error: ‘yylval’ undeclared (first use in this function) aliases_scan.l:14: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once aliases_scan.l:14: error: for each function it appears in.) aliases_scan.l:14: error: ‘T_IDENT’ undeclared (first use in this function) aliases_scan.l:19: error: ‘T_ERROR’ undeclared (first use in this function) aliases_scan.l:20: error: ‘T_EOF’ undeclared (first use in this function) *** Error code 1 Where is aliases_parse.h supposed to be generated? Thanks, -- Michel Alexandre Salim
