On Tuesday 1. of March 2011 16:07:47 Tom Lane wrote:
> Rumko <rumcic@gmail.com> 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
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.
--
Regards,
Rumko