>Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 19:02:09 +0100
>From: jules@mailbox.co.uk (Julian Bean)

>However, it does seem to me that we have a problem with gcc and friends,
>due to the way we convert from GNU-distribs to BSD-style makefiles.  Can we
>not come to some 'automatic wrapper' makefile arrangement like openBSD
>purports to use (that info came from their website)?  It is irritating not
>to have the ability to easily compile the latest version of critical
>development tools.

I was able to to apply the gcc-2.7.2-2.7.2.1.diff patch without too
much difficulty.  For anything using BFD, you're on your own.

>And, as I asked in a previous post, shouldn't we submit mods to GNU and
>become a 'supported' platform in their distribution?

Well, we are, but AFAIK the configs are out of date.  For instance, I
was able to build gdb 4.16, but it refused to recognize 1.2_BETA core
dumps.  Has anyone ever documented how NetBSD's a.out format differs
from the original?  pk?

>While I'm on the subject of development - libcurses.so seems to reference
>[symbols defined in] libtermcap.so, [specifically _tgetstr] but doesn't
>dynamically load it - why not?  On Solaris you can ldd
>/usr/lib/libmylib.so, but our ldd seems to only support actual
>executables...

Solaris shlibs are quite different from SunOS (and hence NetBSD)
shlibs.  SunOS's ldd segfaults when you run it on a shared library.
-- 
Mike Long <mike.long@analog.com>     <URL:http://www.shore.net/~mikel>
VLSI Design Engineer         finger mikel@shore.net for PGP public key
Analog Devices, CPD Division          CCBF225E7D3F7ECB2C8F7ABB15D9BE7B
Norwood, MA 02062 USA       (eq (opinion 'ADI) (opinion 'mike)) -> nil