Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
* Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-06 23:19]: Or as Wouter pointed out on d-d port glibc. Which I think would be most beneficial as it additianaly would minimize the number of packages to add to the archive for the solaris port in case nexentas work should become a debian subproject one day (and iirc that was one of the goals). yours Martin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux - The Universal Operating System * Joey notices Alfie can read manpages :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
I suppose porting glibc is quite important because it also minimises the porting of everything else that may need to be adapted. andrew On 4/7/06, Martin Wuertele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-06 23:19]: Or as Wouter pointed out on d-d port glibc. Which I think would be most beneficial as it additianaly would minimize the number of packages to add to the archive for the solaris port in case nexentas work should become a debian subproject one day (and iirc that was one of the goals). yours Martin -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux - The Universal Operating System * Joey notices Alfie can read manpages :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
Andrew Donnellan a écrit : I suppose porting glibc is quite important because it also minimises the porting of everything else that may need to be adapted. True. I would add that most of the changes needs to build packages on non-linux systems using glibc has already been done by the GNU/Hurd and GNU/kFreeBSD ports. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `-people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
* Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-04-07 11:35]: I suppose porting glibc is quite important because it also minimises the porting of everything else that may need to be adapted. Yes, that's the point. yours Martin p.s. no need to cc me, I'm subscribed -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux - The Universal Operating System On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 02:44:31PM +0100, Amaya wrote: (...) - On a talk at Madrid, Miguel de Icaza who is a close friend of mine BTW, used female secretaries as examples of clueless users. Strange. I'd have used Americans. -- Andrew Suffield, debian-project@lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
Le mercredi 05 avril 2006 à 15:18 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit : Attached is the first in the series of dpkg patches which adds solaris-i386 architecture support used by NexentaOS. Have you fixed the legal situation of dpkg being linked with a GPL-incompatible C library? Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
The GPL states that you can freely link with libraries normally shipped with your OS or compiler, so I would think this would include the C library. andrew On 4/6/06, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le mercredi 05 avril 2006 à 15:18 -0700, Erast Benson a écrit : Attached is the first in the series of dpkg patches which adds solaris-i386 architecture support used by NexentaOS. Have you fixed the legal situation of dpkg being linked with a GPL-incompatible C library? Regards, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 05:41:04PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote: The GPL states that you can freely link with libraries normally shipped with your OS or compiler, No. It says you may do this *if* you aren't shipping your GPLed binaries together with those libraries. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
Hmmm. Would this include 'mere aggregation'? On 4/6/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 05:41:04PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote: The GPL states that you can freely link with libraries normally shipped with your OS or compiler, No. It says you may do this *if* you aren't shipping your GPLed binaries together with those libraries. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 05:41:04PM +1000, Andrew Donnellan wrote: The GPL states that you can freely link with libraries normally shipped with your OS or compiler, so I would think this would include the C library. Unfortunately, it does not apply if the thing you ship is also part of that same OS or compiler. Which is the case for dpkg (unless you're not doing Debian, which I understand you are). This could be fixed if you get a special exception from the maintainer of every program you try to link with your libc, but I suspect it's going to be easier to either port glibc to solaris, or get Sun to relicense their code under something that is GPL-compatible. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 4/6/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. It says you may do this *if* you aren't shipping your GPLed binaries together with those libraries. Hmmm. Would this include 'mere aggregation'? Yes. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
The language in the GPL seems quite ambiguous; it could be argued that this is really a violation of DFSG#9 (license must not contaminate) (I wouldn't say it is), but it is ambiguous. andrew On 4/7/06, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 4/6/06, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No. It says you may do this *if* you aren't shipping your GPLed binaries together with those libraries. Hmmm. Would this include 'mere aggregation'? Yes. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net
Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The language in the GPL seems quite ambiguous; The language in the GPL is not ambiguous and the meaning of this section has been well-understood and widely discussed for years. | The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for | making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source | code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any | associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control | compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special | exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is | normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major | components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on | which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the | executable. The intention of this clause is to prohibit *exactly* what you are trying to do. This is not in any way an unintended consequence. It is an intentional part of the GPL and many people who place their code under the GPL fully intended beforehand for this to be the implication. You're only allowed to take advantage of the OS clause if you are not distributing the software along with the OS. That clause is there to allow people to run free software on non-free systems, not to provide a general loophole for derivative binary works containing both GPL'd and GPL-incompatible code. We already had this thread and several of those people stepped forward and were quite explicit about their understanding of the license under which their code was released. If this is not what people want, they shouldn't use the GPL. Most software authors using the GPL are not stupid and are quite capable of understanding and choosing all of the implications of using the GPL. it could be argued that this is really a violation of DFSG#9 (license must not contaminate) (I wouldn't say it is), but it is ambiguous. If you don't believe this is true, why are you bringing it up? It's obviously not true; DFSG #9 doesn't consider applying the license to derivative works to be contamination, nor could it possibly do so and make any sense. The restriction is on the distribution of binaries, not on anything else accompanying the binaries. It is not even a restriction; rather, the GPL contains a specific, targetted grant of extra privileges that this use does not qualify for. It is a special exception, akin to the special exceptions that cover use of Autoconf-generated scripts, that under extremely limited circumstances grants an exemption to one of the core requirements of the GPL: | 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, | under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of | Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: | | a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable | source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections | 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, | | b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three | years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your | cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete | machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be | distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium | customarily used for software interchange; or, | | c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer | to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is | allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you | received the program in object code or executable form with such | an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) This use doesn't qualify for the exemption, and distributing binaries linked against the Solaris libc libraries with their GPL-incompatible license is otherwise in violation of the above requirements. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
(d-l may give advice) So now that's sorted out really Nexenta needs an exemption from *every* copyright holder in dpkg, gcc, binutils, apt, coreutils, etc. (the GNU utils would be easier as there is _usually_ only one copyright holder: FSF) or OpenSolaris needs to relicense (impossible as Sun wouldn't like it). Also considering the recent debate on the MPL would the CDDL even be considered free? andrew On 4/7/06, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The language in the GPL seems quite ambiguous; The language in the GPL is not ambiguous and the meaning of this section has been well-understood and widely discussed for years. | The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for | making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source | code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any | associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control | compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special | exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is | normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major | components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on | which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the | executable. The intention of this clause is to prohibit *exactly* what you are trying to do. This is not in any way an unintended consequence. It is an intentional part of the GPL and many people who place their code under the GPL fully intended beforehand for this to be the implication. You're only allowed to take advantage of the OS clause if you are not distributing the software along with the OS. That clause is there to allow people to run free software on non-free systems, not to provide a general loophole for derivative binary works containing both GPL'd and GPL-incompatible code. We already had this thread and several of those people stepped forward and were quite explicit about their understanding of the license under which their code was released. If this is not what people want, they shouldn't use the GPL. Most software authors using the GPL are not stupid and are quite capable of understanding and choosing all of the implications of using the GPL. it could be argued that this is really a violation of DFSG#9 (license must not contaminate) (I wouldn't say it is), but it is ambiguous. If you don't believe this is true, why are you bringing it up? It's obviously not true; DFSG #9 doesn't consider applying the license to derivative works to be contamination, nor could it possibly do so and make any sense. The restriction is on the distribution of binaries, not on anything else accompanying the binaries. It is not even a restriction; rather, the GPL contains a specific, targetted grant of extra privileges that this use does not qualify for. It is a special exception, akin to the special exceptions that cover use of Autoconf-generated scripts, that under extremely limited circumstances grants an exemption to one of the core requirements of the GPL: | 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, | under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of | Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: | | a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable | source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections | 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, | | b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three | years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your | cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete | machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be | distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium | customarily used for software interchange; or, | | c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer | to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is | allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you | received the program in object code or executable form with such | an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) This use doesn't qualify for the exemption, and distributing binaries linked against the Solaris libc libraries with their GPL-incompatible license is otherwise in violation of the above requirements. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com Jabber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au Debian user - http://debian.org Get
Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
Or as Wouter pointed out on d-d port glibc. andrew On 4/7/06, Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (d-l may give advice) So now that's sorted out really Nexenta needs an exemption from *every* copyright holder in dpkg, gcc, binutils, apt, coreutils, etc. (the GNU utils would be easier as there is _usually_ only one copyright holder: FSF) or OpenSolaris needs to relicense (impossible as Sun wouldn't like it). Also considering the recent debate on the MPL would the CDDL even be considered free? andrew On 4/7/06, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The language in the GPL seems quite ambiguous; The language in the GPL is not ambiguous and the meaning of this section has been well-understood and widely discussed for years. | The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for | making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source | code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any | associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control | compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special | exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is | normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major | components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on | which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the | executable. The intention of this clause is to prohibit *exactly* what you are trying to do. This is not in any way an unintended consequence. It is an intentional part of the GPL and many people who place their code under the GPL fully intended beforehand for this to be the implication. You're only allowed to take advantage of the OS clause if you are not distributing the software along with the OS. That clause is there to allow people to run free software on non-free systems, not to provide a general loophole for derivative binary works containing both GPL'd and GPL-incompatible code. We already had this thread and several of those people stepped forward and were quite explicit about their understanding of the license under which their code was released. If this is not what people want, they shouldn't use the GPL. Most software authors using the GPL are not stupid and are quite capable of understanding and choosing all of the implications of using the GPL. it could be argued that this is really a violation of DFSG#9 (license must not contaminate) (I wouldn't say it is), but it is ambiguous. If you don't believe this is true, why are you bringing it up? It's obviously not true; DFSG #9 doesn't consider applying the license to derivative works to be contamination, nor could it possibly do so and make any sense. The restriction is on the distribution of binaries, not on anything else accompanying the binaries. It is not even a restriction; rather, the GPL contains a specific, targetted grant of extra privileges that this use does not qualify for. It is a special exception, akin to the special exceptions that cover use of Autoconf-generated scripts, that under extremely limited circumstances grants an exemption to one of the core requirements of the GPL: | 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, | under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of | Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: | | a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable | source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections | 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, | | b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three | years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your | cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete | machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be | distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium | customarily used for software interchange; or, | | c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer | to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is | allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you | received the program in object code or executable form with such | an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) This use doesn't qualify for the exemption, and distributing binaries linked against the Solaris libc libraries with their GPL-incompatible license is otherwise in violation of the above requirements. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Andrew Donnellan
Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
Andrew Donnellan wrote: (d-l may give advice) So now that's sorted out really Nexenta needs an exemption from *every* copyright holder in dpkg, gcc, binutils, apt, coreutils, etc. (the GNU utils would be easier as there is _usually_ only one copyright holder: FSF) or OpenSolaris needs to relicense (impossible as Sun wouldn't like it). Needs an exemption? Hmm... Here're a few links and some info, but first: Disclaimer: This post *is not* an invitation for yet another GPL flamewar. GPLv3 is available at [1]. The draft removes ambiguities of GPLv2, and in particular, clarifies the old GPLv2 clause 3: You may copy and distribute the Program ... During the discussion [2], Eben Moglen, General Counsel for the Free Software Foundation, noted that he always believed that GPLv2 should be interpreted in the way GPLv3 now makes explicit. Quoting [3]: Eben made it very clear indeed that he does not regard the issues that are being raised over Nexenta to be any kind of a problem even under GPL v2... More on the same at [3] and [4] by Simon Phipps, Chief Open Source Officer at Sun. [1] http://gplv3.fsf.org/draft [2] http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html [3] http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/webmink?entry=gpl_v3_released [4] http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=21134#21134 OK, now back to the original post, the only purpose of which was to submit a patch. I guess, we'll try Debian BTS. Thanks! -- Alex www.gnusolaris.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 04:24:10PM -0700, Alex Ross wrote: Andrew Donnellan wrote: (d-l may give advice) So now that's sorted out really Nexenta needs an exemption from *every* copyright holder in dpkg, gcc, binutils, apt, coreutils, etc. (the GNU utils would be easier as there is _usually_ only one copyright holder: FSF) or OpenSolaris needs to relicense (impossible as Sun wouldn't like it). Needs an exemption? Hmm... Here're a few links and some info, but first: Disclaimer: This post *is not* an invitation for yet another GPL flamewar. GPLv3 is available at [1]. The draft removes ambiguities of GPLv2, and in particular, clarifies the old GPLv2 clause 3: You may copy and distribute the Program ... During the discussion [2], Eben Moglen, General Counsel for the Free Software Foundation, noted that he always believed that GPLv2 should be interpreted in the way GPLv3 now makes explicit. Quoting [3]: Eben made it very clear indeed that he does not regard the issues that are being raised over Nexenta to be any kind of a problem even under GPL v2... That's his choice to interpret the GPLv2 that way, although given the quite elaborate wording used in the GPL for this point I consider this an attempt at a retcon. Either way, his interpretation of the GPL may be binding on the FSF, but it's not binding on other copyright holders who have licensed their work under the GPL; some of us definitely think the restriction on distributing GPL binaries together with a GPL-incompatible OS is a feature. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 04:24:10PM -0700, Alex Ross wrote: GPLv3 is available at [1]. The draft removes ambiguities of GPLv2, and in particular, clarifies the old GPLv2 clause 3: You may copy and distribute the Program ... During the discussion [2], Eben Moglen, General Counsel for the Free Software Foundation, noted that he always believed that GPLv2 should be interpreted in the way GPLv3 now makes explicit. Quoting [3]: Eben made it very clear indeed that he does not regard the issues that are being raised over Nexenta to be any kind of a problem even under GPL v2... That's his choice to interpret the GPLv2 that way, although given the quite elaborate wording used in the GPL for this point I consider this an attempt at a retcon. Either way, his interpretation of the GPL may be binding on the FSF, but it's not binding on other copyright holders who have licensed their work under the GPL; some of us definitely think the restriction on distributing GPL binaries together with a GPL-incompatible OS is a feature. It is interesting to note, though, that the GPLv3 has apparently dropped this restriction. That will mean that software with or later version clauses potentially won't have this issue once GPLv3 is formally released, although I haven't analyzed it in detail. dpkg is one of the packages with an or later version clause. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
Hi Guys,
Back in November 2005 Michael Schultheiss performed initial analysis of
dpkg patches at [1]. Our dpkg implementation has changed a bit since
than.
Attached is the first in the series of dpkg patches which adds
solaris-i386 architecture support used by NexentaOS.
We would like to start submitting patchsets for core packages like dpkg,
apt, debhelper, coreutils, gcc, xorg, and many others. Does it make
sense?
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-dpkg/2005/11/msg00017.html
Thanks,
Nexenta Team
Index: scripts/dpkg-architecture.pl
===
--- scripts/dpkg-architecture.pl (.../pool/current) (revision 19911)
+++ scripts/dpkg-architecture.pl (.../trunk) (revision 19911)
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@
sub split_debian {
local ($_) = @_;
-if (/^([^-]*)-(.*)/) {
+if (/^([^-][a-zA-Z_]+)[\.\d]*-(.*)/) {
return ($1, $2);
} else {
return (linux, $_);
@@ -151,6 +151,7 @@
# Set default values:
chomp ($deb_build_arch = `dpkg --print-architecture`);
+($deb_os, $deb_cpu) = split_debian($deb_host_arch);
syserr(dpkg --print-architecture failed) if $?8;
$deb_build_gnu_type = debian_to_gnu($deb_build_arch);
@@ -258,6 +259,14 @@
DEB_HOST_ARCH DEB_HOST_ARCH_OS DEB_HOST_ARCH_CPU
DEB_HOST_GNU_CPU DEB_HOST_GNU_SYSTEM DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE);
+# nexenta fixups...
+if ($deb_os == solaris) {
+ $deb_build_gnu_system = solaris;
+ $deb_host_gnu_system = solaris;
+ $deb_build_gnu_type =~ s/i486/i386/;
+ $deb_host_gnu_type =~ s/i486/i386/;
+}
+
$env{'DEB_BUILD_ARCH'}=$deb_build_arch;
$env{'DEB_BUILD_ARCH_OS'}=$deb_build_arch_os;
$env{'DEB_BUILD_ARCH_CPU'}=$deb_build_arch_cpu;
Index: ostable
===
--- ostable (.../pool/current) (revision 19911)
+++ ostable (.../trunk) (revision 19911)
@@ -21,3 +21,4 @@
netbsd netbsd netbsd[^-]*
openbsd openbsd openbsd[^-]*
hurd gnu gnu[^-]*
+solaris pc-solaris2.11 solaris.*
Re: dpkg support for solaris-i386 architecture
Re: Erast Benson 2006-04-06 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Attached is the first in the series of dpkg patches which adds solaris-i386 architecture support used by NexentaOS. We would like to start submitting patchsets for core packages like dpkg, apt, debhelper, coreutils, gcc, xorg, and many others. Does it make sense? This sounds promising, but the correct place to send them is the BTS, where they don't get lost. Christoph -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
