On (07/02/03 11:56), Joel Baker wrote: > On Fri, Feb 07, 2003 at 04:12:37PM +0000, Matthew Rose wrote: > > On (22/10/02 15:44), Joel Baker wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 04:39:21PM +0100, John Ineson wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 06:07:42PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > Oh, and mentions of patch locations aren't ideal now. Joel's got > > > > > rather a > > > > > lot of cleaner ones in his CVS tree, > > > > > > > > Where do I find that? I can't see any reference to it in the list > > > > archives. > > > > > > > > At present, dpkg won't build because it can't find obstack.h, which > > > > seems to be part of glibc. Is there a patch for dpkg that I need? > > > > > > Er. I should probably put it up, shouldn't I? Fixed, and linked from > > > http://debian-bsd.lightbearer.com/ > > > > I'm having trouble reading > > http://debian-bsd.lightbearer.com/Debian-NetBSD/patches/dpkg > > Is the patch elsewhere? > > This has been fixed. Permission stupidity on my part, sorry. > > > Does bsd libc include an obstack equivalent? > > Hrm. Not sure. I can look, but I see no 'man obstack'; is there a > reference for what I should be looking for? > -- > Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That was my foolishness. obstack is included in dpkg in splendid gnu style. I think dpkg just needs prodding to use it's own obstack rather than glibc. In other words I think the obstack thing is just the symptom of dpkg not recognising the environment. Matt
