Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:24:12 -0400 From: "Alexander Sack" <pisymbol@gmail.com> To: "Julian Elischer" <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cross platform building best practices (building 6 on 7) Message-ID: <3c0b01820806201424n53371437m8e9af5507416926e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <485C1DC5.8090007@elischer.org> References: <3c0b01820806190629o7264cfaeg6fa6a08a6822047e@mail.gmail.com> <7d6fde3d0806190822s1420dcake3a38be7189b8ab0@mail.gmail.com> <3c0b01820806201352n54b846cas612a6923531ef04@mail.gmail.com> <485C1DC5.8090007@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 5:14 PM, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> wrote: > Alexander Sack wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 6:29 AM, Alexander Sack <pisymbol@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Folks: >>>> >>>> I've done a lot of Googling and scouring the lists about this >>>> particular subject so I apologize for rehashing it. However, I'm >>>> still confused on what's the best way to perform BSD cross platform >>>> builds. Ideally what I want to have is an environment whereby I can >>>> build a 6.1-RELEASE tree on a 7.0-RELEASE box. I thought originally I >>>> could check out a 6.1 release version, perform make world, and then >>>> use the output of that build as either a basis for a jail or a >>>> toolchain. However, as noted by previous threads, 6.x doesn't build >>>> on a 7.x due to gcc4/binutils compatibility issues (please correct me >>>> if I'm wrong). I then thought I could potentially download a patched >>>> binutils, copy it into src/contrib/binutils and that would potentially >>>> fix it. No dice (and I'm still debugging why since this binutils >>>> package DOES build outside of the make world infrastructure without >>>> issue, this very well could be pilot error on my part since I didn't >>>> update the VERSION string and didn't trim the source files as per the >>>> FreeBSD-deleteList etc.). >>>> >>>> I THEN thought if I build/install a gcc-3.x/bintuils toolchain I could >>>> complie a 6.x on a 7.x machine. Well I haven't done that yet since at >>>> this point I believe I'm diverged from the path of FreeBSD build >>>> enlightenment! Moreover, if would be NICE if I could bootstrap the >>>> normal dev tools from the exiting make world build tree. I'm not yet >>>> ready for a lot of hackery on the build tree without asking around. >>>> :D! >>>> >>>> Does anyone due cross-platform builds (without host virtualization)? >>>> >>>> Thanks! >>>> >>>> -aps >>> >>> (I'll stick to just hackers@ because I don't want to pollute >>> questions@ unnecessarily) >> >> Sorry I felt really bad actually cc'ing questions its just that my >> last groking produced many threads in freebsd-questions as opposed to >> hackers. I'll try to be more attentive to my posts (I have a habit >> cc'ing multiple forums because sometimes they apply but questions is >> for normal troubleshooting, not cross-platform build issues!). >> >>> You touched on an important point. There were some code quality issues >>> (I think) with 6.x that were resolved moving to 7.x, which caused >>> gcc-4.2.x to barf. >> >> Probably but I'm not trying to point fingers! :D! >> >>> gcc-4.2.x requires a newer version of binutils, just because (for API >>> / usage compatibility). >> >> Yea understood. To be honest, this isn't documented very readily. I >> first thought it was pilot error on me, then I decided to take a look >> at what failed to compile (I believe it was an innocent extern). And >> then got lost in gcc/binutils hell. Luckily I've smelled this problem >> before and after some research confirmed by suspicion. >> >>> What you should probably do is create a jail then do your development >>> for 6.x in a jail, 7.x in another, and (if you're bold enough ;)...) >>> do 8.x development in yet a third. Jail's are a much better way to >>> isolate things such that you don't have to worry about toolchain >>> issues like these and are able to setup a sourcebase as the devs >>> intended it (for the most part; you may run into issues with sysctls >>> and virtual kernel stuff like that, but cest la vie... there isn't a >>> better way I know of than that outside of running a VM). >> >> I figured you were going ot say that Garrett. Well OK, but I still >> need to bootstrap my dev environment for 6.x development on 7.x. >> Since binutils compatibility makes my 6.x make world barf on 7.x, >> where should I go? I HAVE not parsed through a lot of the build >> infrastructure yet but it would seem to be IF make world bootstraps >> the world including the development tools, why can't I update >> binutils/gcc inplace and then compile (or is this a regression issue >> which I failed to grasp). Or do I need to update binutils on my >> *host* system itself? i.e. what I'm really asking is does make world >> bootstrap the right bintuils/gcc etc. and then use THAT to compile the >> rest or does it just perform a host build of everything and plops it >> in DESTDIR? >> >> Hope I make some sense here (still a n00b).... > > One thing we always strive for in FreeBSD is an upgrade path. > > As a general rule, a newer system should be able to run a jail > populated with an earlier system. There are some small exceptions, > for example you may need a new version of netstat, ps and libkvm > in your jail. possibly grab them from the /rescue on the new system > so they are statically linked. > also 8.x systems will require that threaded programs from 6.x be dynamically > linked so that they can be remapped to use libthr instead of libkse as > libkse is not supported in 8. So you are talking about binary/ABI compatibility yes? So I would assume what you are saying is I can take a 6.x system, create a filesystem tarball, drop it on a 7.x system and then create a jail out of it. > asside from those I think that just about every thing else should be fine.. > I've run a FreeBSD 1.1 chroot on a freeBSD 7 system > (I had to make 1 very small fix). > > At Ironport we build 4.x binaries on 6.x systems by spinning off > a 4.x chroot as prart of the build process. (they need to link with 4.x > third party binaries) so it's very esay to do. I believe this answers my question but I want to confirm. I THOUGHT about this but I wanted a more *cleanroom* approach. That's all. -aps
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3c0b01820806201424n53371437m8e9af5507416926e>