Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:26:10 -0700
From:      John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
To:        freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Cc:        Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Making C++11 a hard requirement for FreeBSD
Message-ID:  <1966623.eKrA7uLGIR@ralph.baldwin.cx>
In-Reply-To: <7962d62e-3452-6eae-3816-3eca24fa4177@freebsd.org>
References:  <CANCZdfq5=KRp4NYKsc15gyS9C7CxrBFxcKQLPwnb_0oPb15vJw@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfq7CcxXafc0r8WxS7o=qoH_xe0ePMNOgmegM4nEaXTqbw@mail.gmail.com> <7962d62e-3452-6eae-3816-3eca24fa4177@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, October 10, 2017 07:36:25 AM Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> I think we can fix the problem, which is severe, in a week if we can get 
> a commitment from core@ to allow at least one of the following things:
> 
> 1. Package sets (potentially only very minimal ones) uploaded for tier-2 
> systems from machines not controlled and hosted by portmaster, but 
> otherwise project-affiliated (like our PPC build systems).
> 2. The "base" ports built as part of the release/snapshot process and 
> either included on the media (better) or, at the least, available on the 
> official package repositories.
> 3. Allow inclusion of the compiler either in src or in another 
> project-hosted repository connected to src (I realize this isn't 
> external toolchain, but it does still allow us to remove GCC 4.2 without 
> making the system unusable)

I would prefer 2) as I think that is most consistent with what other folks
have been pushing towards.  I would be fine if we just hosted them in
repositories so that 'pkg install' worked out of the box.  At least if we
start building them and publishing the repositories I think it is much
easier to do more testing of them.  Eventually we may also want them on
the install media along with the base system dists, but just having them
regularly built and published would be a good first step.  I would propose
that we build the sysroot required using the foo-xtoolchain-gcc toolchains.

We don't yet produce any install images for MIPS.  If we did I would
advocate that we start providing release snapshots built using
mips-xtoolchain-gcc (make CROSS_TOOLCHAIN=blah) and use the base dist from
those releases as the sysroot to also build the base/ packages and provide
those in a repository.

I think that same approach could be perhaps more readily adopted for
powerpc.  That is, cross-building releases using powerpc-xtoolchain-gcc and
then using the resulting base dist as a sysroot to build the base/ packages
and publishing both of those as our snapshots for current.

I suspect our release generation bits don't yet understand CROSS_TOOLCHAIN
and probably will need some changes to handle that.

-- 
John Baldwin



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1966623.eKrA7uLGIR>