From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 13 21:28:19 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2629F16A4CE for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:28:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from philemon.caltech.edu (philemon.caltech.edu [131.215.158.74]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 012EA43D55 for ; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:28:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jd@philemon.caltech.edu) Received: from philemon.caltech.edu (localhost.caltech.edu [127.0.0.1]) j0DLRHKX017421; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:27:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jd@philemon.caltech.edu) Received: (from jd@localhost) by philemon.caltech.edu (8.12.9p1/8.12.9/Submit) id j0DLRHNb017420; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:27:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:27:17 -0800 From: Jonathan Dama To: Kris Kennaway Message-ID: <20050113212717.GC16747@philemon.caltech.edu> References: <20050113204724.GB16747@philemon.caltech.edu> <20050113210844.GA78383@xor.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050113210844.GA78383@xor.obsecurity.org> cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cross-building ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:28:19 -0000 Thanks for clarifying that I wasn't just missing the obvious. I suppose that's not surprising given all the complicated things some builds do to configure themselves based on testing the environment. What about the "simple" case of building ia32 on an amd64 host? (Assuming WITH_LIB32 has been set in make.conf) I have the impression that amd64 has been setup with an eye toward running a pure amd64 setup, but one of the principle benefits of amd64 is it's support for i386 binaries and libraries... It would be nice (and probably easier on many ports) if the system was geared to have more ia32 centric userland--which I might add is the tradition for mang 64-bit OSs. Having my 64-bit ls is great and all, but really unnecessary + wasteful. Are these sorts of changes in the pipeline or? -Paul >From Kris Kennaway , Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 01:08:44PM -0800: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 12:47:24PM -0800, Paul Allen wrote: > > Is there a command-line option to cause ports to be built > > for a different architecture than that of the native system? > > This is not supported. > > Kris --