Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:27:17 -0800 From: Jonathan Dama <jd@caltech.edu> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cross-building ports Message-ID: <20050113212717.GC16747@philemon.caltech.edu> In-Reply-To: <20050113210844.GA78383@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20050113204724.GB16747@philemon.caltech.edu> <20050113210844.GA78383@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 <kris@obsecurity.org>, 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 --
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050113212717.GC16747>