Porting PostgreSQL to DragonFly BSD
Locked
 
|
From what I have checked, all work on making postgresql compile on new
platforms should be posted to this list, so here it goes. The attached patch (also available at http://www.rumko.net/0001-DragonFly-BSD-support.patch ) applies cleanly to the master branch and can be cherry-picked to REL9_0_STABLE branch without conflicts. It's based on postgres' FreeBSD support with minimal changes (a few freebsd->dragonfly renames, removed mips support since dragonfly does not support it and it also includes a patch to properly define the linker on dfly as per PR pkg/44617 in http://www.netbsd.org/support/query-pr.html gnats database). -- Regards, Rumko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([hidden email]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |
|
|
|
On Sunday 27. of February 2011 23:50:17 Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On sön, 2011-02-27 at 21:19 +0100, Rumko wrote: > > The attached patch (also available at > > http://www.rumko.net/0001-DragonFly-BSD-support.patch ) applies cleanly > > to the master branch and can be cherry-picked to REL9_0_STABLE branch > > without conflicts. > > It seems to me that it would be easier to just map dragonfly to the > freebsd template. I didn't see a precedence for that kind of introduction of a new platform (all others seem to have their own templates), so thought it would've had less chance of being accepted. Is it preferable to have it linked instead of having it separate like in the current patch? -- Regards, Rumko |
|
|
|
On Tuesday 1. of March 2011 16:07:47 Tom Lane wrote:
> Rumko <[hidden email]> writes: > > On Sunday 27. of February 2011 23:50:17 Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> It seems to me that it would be easier to just map dragonfly to the > >> freebsd template. > > > > I didn't see a precedence for that kind of introduction of a new platform > > (all others seem to have their own templates), so thought it would've had > > less chance of being accepted. > > When I looked at that patch, I actually couldn't see anything different > at all from freebsd. We aren't interested in maintaining 99% duplicate > code --- it seems much easier from a maintenance standpoint to introduce > an ifdef or two into the freebsd code, rather than deal with a large cut > and paste job. Please try it that way and see what you come up with. > (It's possible that it'll be so ugly that we agree your original patch > is better, but we need to see the results of the experiment.) > > regards, tom lane http://www.rumko.net/0001-DragonFly-BSD-support-linked.patch ) is a lot shorter. Uses freebsd's template and defines the linker in Makefile.shlib. -- Regards, Rumko  0001-DragonFly-BSD-support-linked.patch (1K) Download Attachment signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment |
|
|
|
|
On Tuesday 1. of March 2011 22:44:16 Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tis, 2011-03-01 at 22:22 +0100, Rumko wrote: > > Well, wouldn't consider it ugly, but the patch (attached and available at > > http://www.rumko.net/0001-DragonFly-BSD-support-linked.patch ) is a lot > > shorter. > > > > Uses freebsd's template and defines the linker in Makefile.shlib. > > The piece in Makefile.shlib you add is dead code because PORTNAME will > never be "dragonfly" (it would be "freebsd"). Ah, good to know. > I see there is a > difference between the existing freebsd code and what you propose to add > in that freebsd doesn't use shared object minor versions. Is that also > or not the case on DragonFly BSD? Due to pkgsrc being the default on NetBSD and DragonFly BSD, it should create the libs in the same way ... maybe instead of using PORTNAME, we could use host_os to differentiate? -- Regards, Rumko |
|
|
On Tuesday 1. of March 2011 23:05:17 Rumko wrote:
> On Tuesday 1. of March 2011 22:44:16 Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On tis, 2011-03-01 at 22:22 +0100, Rumko wrote: > > > Well, wouldn't consider it ugly, but the patch (attached and available > > > at http://www.rumko.net/0001-DragonFly-BSD-support-linked.patch ) is a > > > lot shorter. > > > > > > Uses freebsd's template and defines the linker in Makefile.shlib. > > > > The piece in Makefile.shlib you add is dead code because PORTNAME will > > never be "dragonfly" (it would be "freebsd"). > > Ah, good to know. > > > I see there is a > > difference between the existing freebsd code and what you propose to add > > in that freebsd doesn't use shared object minor versions. Is that also > > or not the case on DragonFly BSD? > > Due to pkgsrc being the default on NetBSD and DragonFly BSD, it should > create the libs in the same way ... maybe instead of using PORTNAME, we > could use host_os to differentiate? http://www.rumko.net/0001-DragonFly-BSD-support-linked-nbsd.patch )? instead of linking to freebsd, it's linked to netbsd and It still compiles due to the two templates being similar enough. -- Regards, Rumko 0001-DragonFly-BSD-support-linked-nbsd.patch (1K) Download Attachment signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment |
|
|
|
|
On Wednesday 2. of March 2011 20:18:08 Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On ons, 2011-03-02 at 09:10 +0100, Rumko wrote: > > What about this patch ( > > http://www.rumko.net/0001-DragonFly-BSD-support-linked-nbsd.patch )? > > instead of linking to freebsd, it's linked to netbsd and It still > > compiles due to the two templates being similar enough. > > Looks good. Committed. Thank you. -- Regards, Rumko |
Loading...
| Powered by Nabble | See how NAML generates this page |
