Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 06:46:58 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@scc.nl>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: new sigset_t and upgrading: a proposal Message-ID: <99093007010203.31512@nomad.dataplex.net> In-Reply-To: <37F337CC.5E06911B@scc.nl> References: <37F337CC.5E06911B@scc.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 30 Sep 1999, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > Sub-problem B (sigframe) doesn't need to be handled, because: > 1. none of the tools require ... Correct, this is a "non-problem". > Sub-problem A (syscalls) can be easily handled if the syscalls are added > to a -stable kernel. Wrong. I CANNOT rebuild the kernel that runs my build machine. What we need is to (effectively) remove these syscalls from the tools in question. This can be done with conditional compilation or a compatability library. Each tool should be evaluated for its functionality. If the host's tool has the required functionality, there is no reason to upgrade it in order to build the "foreign" (4.0) system. For example, "cat". If the host's tool is inappropriate, we MUST build a cross-build version. In many cases, this simply means that we compile the source of the tool with the host's headers. In others, it is more complex, but it can, and should, be done. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?99093007010203.31512>