Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 09:16:55 -0700 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com>, FreeBSD Toolchain <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: powerpc64 example, base/binutils presence vs. devel/powerpc64-gcc build failure: "phase: build-depends" confused then gcc config aborts build Message-ID: <4b7cb935-7643-da6c-261a-d69e9f155c78@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <925D3E9A-4EF0-4B49-83D4-C9574170EB66@yahoo.com> References: <925D3E9A-4EF0-4B49-83D4-C9574170EB66@yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/12/18 6:51 AM, Mark Millard wrote: > The following is from attempting to build devel/powerpc-gcc > via poudriere-devel on the powerpc64 system after having > bootstrapped via (in part) base/binutils and the .txz > produced on the host (amd64). > > Looks like having both: > > /usr/bin/powerpc64-unknown-freebsd12.0-* > and: > /usr/local/bin/powerpc64-unknown-freebsd12.0-* > > in a powerpc64 environment confuses "phase: build-depends" > in poudriere for the devel/powerpc64-gcc build: Ah, I could see that. I had kept the longer binary names with the full tuple since the original base/binutils had them, but I've considered stripping them as we only really need /usr/bin/as, etc. for the base system. I hadn't gotten to the point of trying to build any ports with base/* as I'm still trying to just do a buildworld (and running poudriere in a qemu image of mips64 would be very unpleasant). I think probably base/binutils just needs to drop the names with a full tuple if possible. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4b7cb935-7643-da6c-261a-d69e9f155c78>