Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:20:31 -0600 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: linimon@freebsd.org, freebsd-embedded@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports cross-compilation Message-ID: <20111206192031.GB5672@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <1F03AEDA-7B01-4AF9-83B5-415B9226DF0F@bsdimp.com> References: <4ED6FD47.6050704@bluezbox.com> <96407605-79A9-4AE3-AC2F-13BD97943153@lassitu.de> <20111205235219.GB18310@lonesome.com> <1F03AEDA-7B01-4AF9-83B5-415B9226DF0F@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 08:54:55PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > Well, the ONLY_FOR_ARCH stuff might be a good first-order clue. This is why I want to move away from NOT_FOR_ARCHS and move exclusively to ONLY_FOR_ARCHS; for embedded, the former is exactly The Wrong Thing. Unfortunately, NOT_FOR_ARCHS is all over the tree. The other problem is that if the port merely breaks on compiling (rather than there being missing pieces that prevent it from even getting that far) the 'best practice' is to set BROKEN conditionally, instead of *ARCH*. But the tree is rife with examples where the one approach is done rather than the other. To see an example of the union of the above: http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/sparc64-9-latest/duds.verbose That's the union of all cases of "do not try to build me" for sparc64-9. Obviously a lot of the things are common to all archs, and one metadata entry can cause many lines (e.g. "no linux on sparc64"), but it gives a rough idea of the scope of the task (1794 entries). mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111206192031.GB5672>