pkgsrc build

[Leopold Toetsch]

Recently on IRC:

< Debolaz> leo: You can see the patches I made at

http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/pkgsrc/lang/parrot/patches/
< Debolaz> The only one that's really needed to make things compile is
patch-ac, but
patch-ad might be of some interest.

Folks, please check these patches and consider issues & integration
into parrot trunk.

Thanks,
leo

[Anders Nor Berle]

I just thought I'd elaborate a bit on the patches.

patch-ac is neccesary to make parrot compile on my FreeBSD 6 system due
to the fact that -lc_r doesn't mix well with any other threading
library. I haven't investigated deeply what would be the "right"
solution but if there is a better solution, it would require more
alterations to the code and I prioritized for this initial package to
keep changes as minimal as possible.

patch-ad makes it not install executables compiled with shared
libraries with a _shared suffix. Of course, this makes more sense when
you consider that patch-ab removes all the nonshared executables from
MANIFEST which probably isn't the "right" thing to do but works
reasonably well for this purpose.

The significant changes from a stock parrot install apart from this is
that it installs the include files in /usr/pkg/include rather than
/usr/pkg/parrot/include and libparrot in /usr/pkg/lib. Other than that,
it just stuffs the install in /usr/pkg/parrot. I'll probably move other
things into more appropriate locations once I'm sure it won't break
anything. :)

Anders

[Jerry Gay]

patch-aa (to MANIFEST) performs some well-needed cleanup, and seems
accurate. i suggest it gets applied.

patch-ab (to MANIFEST.generated) removes some filenames of files that
are not built by the default make target, but are built by the
parrot_utils target. i believe these files should not be removed from
MANIFEST.generated. the remainder of the patch performs necessary
cleanup, and should be applied.

patch-ac is freebsd-specific, i have no reason to disagree with it's
accuracy or appropriateness. if it works, it should be applied.

i have no comment on patch-ad. i have no idea what the naming
conventions for shared binaries should be.

~jerry

[Florian Ragwitz]

On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 03:33:36PM -0800, jerry gay wrote:
> On 1/3/06, Leopold Toetsch <l...@toetsch.at> wrote:
> > Recently on IRC:
> >
> > < Debolaz> leo: You can see the patches I made at
> >
> > http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/pkgsrc/lang/parrot/patches/
> > < Debolaz> The only one that's really needed to make things compile is
> > patch-ac, but
> > patch-ad might be of some interest.
> >
> > Folks, please check these patches and consider issues & integration
> > into parrot trunk.
> >
> patch-aa (to MANIFEST) performs some well-needed cleanup, and seems
> accurate. i suggest it gets applied.

I also thought that way and applied it.

> patch-ab (to MANIFEST.generated) removes some filenames of files that
> are not built by the default make target, but are built by the
> parrot_utils target. i believe these files should not be removed from
> MANIFEST.generated. the remainder of the patch performs necessary
> cleanup, and should be applied.

I applied the cleanup part. The *_shared entries aren't in
MANIFEST.generated anymore. They are replaced by installable_* which may
be shared or static, depending on the configuration.

> patch-ac is freebsd-specific, i have no reason to disagree with it's
> accuracy or appropriateness. if it works, it should be applied.

I don't have a clue about freebsd. Can some freebsd people confirm that
it works and is portable enough?

> i have no comment on patch-ad. i have no idea what the naming
> conventions for shared binaries should be.

We don't have *_shared executables anymore. This patch isn't needed
anymore.

Regards,
Flo

--
BOFH excuse #146:
Communications satellite used by the military for star wars.