Hi Dimitri, On 31/12/2013 15:46, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > I would like to package a temporary fork of libnih, which has been > ported to kFreeBSD/eglibc platform. My plan for this package is to > provide same packages as the src:libnih, but for non-Linux ports > only. At the moment I have a port to kFreeBSD/eglibc. > > This is separate source package as the supported set of APIs is not yet > fully same as of the Linux port of libnih. For example kqueue/kevent > technology is not yet used to provide, e.g. file level notification as > done with inotify in the linux port. > > Some of my patches have already been accepted upstream > (https://github.com/keybuk/libnih), others are under review and some are > not ready for submission yet. > > All libnih test-suite passes on kFreeBSD for those components that have > been ported. > > Together with this effort, I am staging patches for Upstart itself for > kFreeBSD/eglibc https://code.launchpad.net/~xnox/upstart/kfreebsd. It > compiles, but at the moment is still incomplete. The test-suite does not > pass yet and there are no kFreeBSD specific bridges yet (e.g. devd > events, instead of udev, etc.). I'm hoping to have a bootable > kFreeBSD/eglibc port soon, with full support ahead of Jessie freeze on > 5th of November 2014.
I assume porting Upstart is the whole reason you've ported libnih? I haven't been following the discussion about Upstart vs Systemd vs OpenRC debate. Are you doing this because you expect that Upstart will be adopted? > The requirements for libnih/kfreebsd, at the moment are, eglibc 2.18 & > kFreeBSD kernels with fixed waitid/wait6 syscalls. These are all present > in Debian experimental. Note the waitid/wait6 fix is in unstable, too (since 10.0~svn258623-1). > Alternatively, if lower eglibc versions are > required I could easily use wait6 syscall directely, without eglibc > wrapper. In that case only requirements would be patched kFreeBSD > kernels for the kern/184002 > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=184002&cat= bug which I > discovered in FreeBSD. If I had to choose, I think I'd rather break old libc than break old kernels. The former is readily fixed by proper use of Depends field, while the later breaks kfreebsd-downloader and all sort of chroot/jail environments. > It's fixed in current/11, and is on track to be > fixed in 9.2, 10 stable updates. Uhm doesn't seem so. Nobody MFCed it to stable/10 yet. I think we can take 10.1 support for granted. 10.0 is probably difficult (but I will try anyway). -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52c4800b.6040...@debian.org
