On 7/15/2012 19:55, Greg Troxel wrote:
pkgsrc/net/coda/patches/patch-coda-src_kerndep_pioctl.h \
pkgsrc/net/coda/patches/patch-coda-src_resolution_rename.cc \
pkgsrc/net/coda/patches/patch-coda-src_venus_venusrecov.cc \
pkgsrc/net/coda/patches/patch-config.h.in
Please add comments (to the patches that aren't just adding DragonFly as
the nth bsd-like OS) and send the patches upstream. Making things build
without upstream interaction and comments is in my view not necessarily
a win, as it's unclear what we're getting for the cognitive load of more
patches.
(If you're actually on the usptream list and trying to get coda working
on dragonfly, that's another story.)
What's your take on the state of the dragonfly coda kernel module?
The patches are just allowing it to build on Dragonfly, changes are obvious. The only remarkable thing is that MAXNAMELEN isn't defined on DragonFly. I cheated by putting a MAXNAMELEN definition in config.h, otherwise I would have had to patch several other files that referenced it.
By the way, the __NetBSD_Prereq__(4,99,24) line on worker.cc produced an error, something like "missing binary operator before token". That's why I wrapped in it a __DragonFly__ macro so that it wouldn't get parsed. I don't know why it works on NetBSD's gcc 4.5.
I thought this was going to be a quick-fix package, it turned out to be a lot more involved that I anticipated. I was leaving it to the users to improve it. If it doesn't build at all, nobody will feed back on it.
John