[csw-maintainers] Solaris 9 and amd64

[Joerg Schilling]

Maciej (Matchek) Blizi??ski <maciej at opencsw.org> wrote:

> > SchilliX would need separate and slightly different packages but they could be
> > compiled from the same set of sources.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> > The packages should be as compatible as possible to the previous Sun packages.
> >
> > This means that we need to install the binaries relatively to / /usr or /usr/sfw
> > and that there is a need to have ELF version information in libraries that are
> > compatiblle to the Sun version data.
> >
> > The related information can be either obtained from the mapfiles from the sfw
> > source consolidation or from readin the libraries itself.
>
> Although generally the BUILD_PREFIX can be set to something else,
> there are many places where the "/opt/csw" prefix is hardcoded: for
> example in patches, and in shipped example config files. I think that
> if you plan to adapt the sources to make the libraries backward
> compatible with the SFW packages, changing the compiler is probably
> the least of your worries.

Then we would need to forbid such patches that introduce harcoded strings like 
"/opt/csw".

If there is really a need to have such strings in the code, they should be 
"introduced" via defines from the cc command line like:

	cc '-DMY_STRING="/some/path"'

and thus could be passed as parameters to the build system.

> It would be cool if there was source-level collaboration. Making the
> same sources build in two flavors would be a challenge, a very
> interesting one.

I would be interested in getting compiled SVr4 packages for SchilliX as there 
is already a lot of effort directly related to OpenSolaris and the ON code.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily