From owner-freebsd-ports  Sat Oct  3 04:52:09 1998
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA02469
          for freebsd-ports-outgoing; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 04:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: (from jkoshy@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA02462;
          Sat, 3 Oct 1998 04:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from jkoshy)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1998 04:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joseph Koshy <jkoshy>
Message-Id: <199810031152.EAA02462@hub.freebsd.org>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98
To: ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Cc: asami
Subject: Re: ELF transition for ports (revised) 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 16 Sep 1998 18:14:55 MST."
             <199809170114.SAA10463@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org



Hi Porters,

I'm not still sure how to handle ports that require different patches to
be applied when compiling for ELF vs when compiling for AOUT.  Typically 
these ports will be attempting to optimize for the machine architecture
by writing performance critical portions of the code in assembly.
(Eg:- look at audio/mpg123 or lang/caml-light or graphics/xaos).  

The problem is that we need to apply slightly different patches in these 
cases in order to handle the leading underscore problem.

Should we have a patches.${PORTOBJFORMAT} directory with patches specific
to compiling under a particular OBJFORMAT?  Is there a better way of
handling this problem?

Thanks,
Koshy






To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message