Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 00:00:13 -0800 From: Oleksandr Tymoshenko <gonzo@bluezbox.com> To: Stefan Bethke <stb@lassitu.de> Cc: freebsd-embedded@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports cross-compilation Message-ID: <447CC818-CEA3-46B9-A15F-E0FA737B0EB4@bluezbox.com> In-Reply-To: <96407605-79A9-4AE3-AC2F-13BD97943153@lassitu.de> References: <4ED6FD47.6050704@bluezbox.com> <96407605-79A9-4AE3-AC2F-13BD97943153@lassitu.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> - Package builder works only on installed port. > > Have you looked at pkgng yet? The wiki page says it can create a package from a separate directory tree. No, not yet. By "Package builder" I meant package-building targets of ports Makefiles. pkg_create can work on directory tree + setof pre-generated files. It's just that at the moment we use "pkg_create -b" to create package archive. >> - Makefile for cross-compilable port should be split into three parts: >> common, native, cross. It's not clear who should maintain cross part >> though. > > From many previous discussions, people are reluctant to add files to all ports because of the filesystem and VCS bloat that causes. Also, considering the number of ports there are in the tree, and how well maintained many of the lesser ones are, any solution that requires no or very little changes to each port would stand a much bigger chance of being implemented successfully. As I told - getting all ports cross-compilable is impossible. We're talking about most-used in embedded environment ports. I'd say it's a couple of hundreds. So we need modify only these ports and only if it's really required. Simple ports like converters/base64 will not require modification at all.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?447CC818-CEA3-46B9-A15F-E0FA737B0EB4>