Mario Lang (09/03/2007):
> First of all, thanks for the feedback.
You're welcome, thanks for your responsiveness!
> With the next upstream release of BRLTTY (hopefully 3.8) I will then
> do the remaining changes to the packaging. Let me ask you some
> specific questions:
If it's not going to be fixed right now but planned for a later release,
maybe you could add the 'confirmed' tag so that other porters don't
loose time when browsing kfreebsd bugs to ping bugs opened for a while.
(Of course once you have no more question to ask. ;-))
> > * brltty_Programs_Makefile.in-kfreebsd.diff:
> > As far as I understand it, it is sufficient to copy
> > sys_freebsd.c and usb_freebsd.c to respectively sys_kfreebsd.c
> > and usb_kfreebsd.c (in Programs), and to add them in this
> > Makefile.in to allow the build on GNU/kFreeBSD. I know that I
> > might use 'freebsd' instead of 'kfreebsd' in the configure.in
> > file, but these files might need adjustments in the future, and
> > might differ from the plain FreeBSD ones.
> As I understand it, the kFreeBSD project uses a more or less
> unmodified FreeBSD kernel with a different user-space. What exactly
> do you expect that we'd have to modify in *_kfreebsd.c? Since these
> files in BRLTTY define the layer into different kernels, I kind of
> wonder if we really want to copy these files.
First of all, you have to know that I'm not a "confirmed" GNU/kFreeBSD
porter (see on , I'm quite new), so I don't have exactly in mind the
differences between what I call the "plain" FreeBSD kernel and "our"
kFreeBSD one. Given your feedback, it sounds to me that it would be
sensible to use directly *_freebsd.c and to only make a distinction
between *_kfreebsd.c and *_freebsd.c if some error occurs (in which case
one could think of adapting *_freebsd.c accordingly, so that no copy is
needed at all).
1. (heavy page)