From owner-freebsd-arm@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 17 22:10:21 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0487106566C for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:10:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from nahkohe.jetcafe.org (nahkohe.jetcafe.org [205.147.26.32]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B105C8FC12 for ; Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:10:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Envelope-To: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Received: from [205.147.26.5] (hokkshideh4.jetcafe.org [205.147.26.5]) by nahkohe.jetcafe.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id q7HMA4rq096330 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:10:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <502EC13C.2080402@jetcafe.org> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:10:04 -0700 From: Dave Hayes User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120612 Thunderbird/13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Warner Losh References: <5008728C.5040100@jetcafe.org> <1343846511.1128.34.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <501B0E04.5040901@jetcafe.org> <1343951251.1128.53.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <502AEC99.70708@jetcafe.org> <55EAC835-9838-4802-8B2C-73B32FC6513F@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <55EAC835-9838-4802-8B2C-73B32FC6513F@bsdimp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Building ARM ports (was Re: Globalscale Dreamplug and 8.3 RELEASE) X-BeenThere: freebsd-arm@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the StrongARM Processor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:10:21 -0000 On 08/14/12 19:42, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Aug 14, 2012, at 6:26 PM, Dave Hayes wrote: > >> On 08/02/12 16:47, Ian Lepore wrote: >>> I haven't yet tried to build ports using stock freebsd. At work we have >>> an arcane and complex and fragile system for cross-building ports, which >>> I only partially understand. >> >> That's the entire problem with cross-building. Ports are very complex systems and I think it's cleaner to just build them in an ARM emulator. >> There are far too many dependencies to keep track of otherwise, at least >> for me. > > Yet the Linux folks are able to do it. If we want to be competitive, we'll need to have a viable solution. To be clear, I wasn't referencing ability when I wrote that, it was more of a time efficiency comment. Obviously it's possible. :) As I understand the ports system, ports are not generally created with the idea of cross-compilation. Thus, I posit that it's best (lacking fancier hardware) in terms of time spent and port build integrity to run an emulator and do my port builds in a clean environment. I could be very wrong here. QEMU may accomplish the goal of a compiled ARM port, but what other requirement am I missing? >> When I find time to struggle with QEMU again, I'll try to post a summary here...presuming I can get this to work. > This may or may not ultimately work. I hope that the complexity of this is actually less than getting it right in the cross building world. It is certainly appearing to be a struggle. I'm using virtualbox to run a machine which runs QEMU, that might actually be my problem. However, I'm under the impression that *this* struggle is much more likely to not affect the integrity of a ports build. -- Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>>> *The opinions expressed above are entirely my own* <<<< Advice is priceless --- when it becomes interference it is preposterous.