Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 12:47:08 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@mat.net> To: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> Cc: Satoshi - the Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG>, jkh@zippy.cdrom.com, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /var/db/pkg/.mkversion Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9904011237370.498-100000@picnic.mat.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9904010703520.3443-100000@nomad.dataplex.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: > > Richard, don't forget that having /usr/src isn't required to build > > ports. > > I don't think that I did forget. I explicitly reference that situation. > > The real solution (re the TARGET) has to depend on something that the USER > sets for a particular "run". As such, it should be an environment variable > which defaults to the HOST value. > > At the same time, the ports have to consider the purpose for which they > need the identification. For example, "fetch -A" is a HOST/TOOLSET > situation. But selecting the set of sysctls to compile into the > code is a TARGET question. Nobody said cross compilation is easy :-) Well, seeing as FreeBSD doesn't have control over the software involved, and nearly all the software involved is broken for the kind of portability you're talking about, this seems unreasonable. It's one thing for ports to adapt a particular piece of software to run on FreeBSD hosts, it's quite a different thing to make it cross-build, any to any. That would convert doing a port from being a reasonably short job, to being (for each port) a major rewrite project. Seeing the extreme fluidity of many ports, and the large number of ports, this sounds like a very unreal expectation. Your statement "Nobody said cross compilation is easy :-)", well, the work involved is huge, and the demand ... huh, you're the ONLY one to demand it. OK, maybe even "demand" is wrong, but you get the idea, that it's a lot of work for something that isn't seen as necessary. If you were talking about the FreeBSD sources themselves, everything I said is out the window, because we *do* have total control of those, and the change rate is under our purview. For ports, with that outside our control, and no established need, it seems excessive. Go adapt one of the gnome things, see how long it takes you to do *one* port with the features you seem to be requiring. If it's less than what I envision, perhaps you're getting what you want over badly, and seeing a port done as you want would be instructive to the rest of us. I think you're going to spend a *lot* of time doing that one port. ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Chuck Robey | Interests include any kind of voice or data chuckr@glue.umd.edu | communications topic, C programming, and Unix. 213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1 | Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run picnic (FreeBSD-current) (301) 220-2114 | and jaunt (Solaris7). ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9904011237370.498-100000>