Subject: Re: fortune makefiles incorrect ?
To: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/06/1999 22:32:53
Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU> writes:
> 1. Some subset of the tree has to be coded `portably enough' that
> it will compile painlesly on non-NetBSD systems: FreBSD, LInux,
> Solaris, what-have-you.
yup. it might well be OK to have a small portability library that
copes with some of the more commonplace non-standard functions
(e.g. err/warn), just as e.g. the toolchain has libiberty. however,
it should be fairly obvious how to bootstrap the whole thing, and
requiring a zoularis-like environment is just Too Much.
I actually think there are probably plenty of assumptions that you
could make to make your life easier, too. (e.g. ANSI C.)
> 2. We need to figure out exactly what that toolset *is*.
> The NetBSD-to-NetBSD cross-compile work has found a chunk of it,
> but there's all the usual suspects -- byacc, lex/flex, compiler chain --
> in addition to the program-building tools inside monop, fortune,
> tn3270, and what-have-you.
right. unfortunately, there's more than there might otherwise be
because some of our necessary basic tools, e.g. config, need lex and
yacc, but so be it.
among the usual suspects for netbsd are make, config, and i dunno
> 3. We need to make sure those tools build portably on non-netbsd
> 4. We need a concise and complete list of what a cross-developer
> has to build and install *before* she can start using bmake
> to chew through a cross-build.
> An autoconfig phase to figureout the host environment might
yes, esp. if coupled with a portability library.
> And we should put enough of the GNU tree back into gnu/dist
> to let cross-builders do a normal GNU config for their target.
Yes, if there are things missing for other hosts, they should be added
back. And, as important, we need to be getting our changes back into
the GNU distributions of the tools.
> A Makefile to build the neceessary bootstrap tools would be great,
I'd actually say that a shell script is in order, rather than anything
else. (There's no real notion of 'targets' an 'dependencies,' just
everything to do and the right order to do it in. 8-) Avoids a lot of
hassle that way.
Chris Demetriou - email@example.com - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.