On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 12:25 PM John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 10/15/18 11:06 AM, Warner Losh wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2018, 10:20 AM John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org <mailto: > j...@freebsd.org>> wrote: > > > > On 10/12/18 6:51 AM, Mark Millard wrote: > > > The following is from attempting to build devel/powerpc-gcc > > > via poudriere-devel on the powerpc64 system after having > > > bootstrapped via (in part) base/binutils and the .txz > > > produced on the host (amd64). > > > > > > Looks like having both: > > > > > > /usr/bin/powerpc64-unknown-freebsd12.0-* > > > and: > > > /usr/local/bin/powerpc64-unknown-freebsd12.0-* > > > > > > in a powerpc64 environment confuses "phase: build-depends" > > > in poudriere for the devel/powerpc64-gcc build: > > > > Ah, I could see that. I had kept the longer binary names with the > full tuple > > since the original base/binutils had them, but I've considered > stripping them > > as we only really need /usr/bin/as, etc. for the base system. I > hadn't gotten > > to the point of trying to build any ports with base/* as I'm still > trying to > > just do a buildworld (and running poudriere in a qemu image of > mips64 would > > be very unpleasant). I think probably base/binutils just needs to > drop the > > names with a full tuple if possible. > > > > > > Having symlinks to the long names plays nicer with autoconf, of at least > has in the past. Our build system doesn't care, though... > > I think it only plays nicer for the port. We've never had > /usr/bin/x86_64-freebsd-ld > linked to /usr/bin/ld in base, and base/binutils' role is to provide > /usr/bin/as, > /usr/bin/ld, etc. > The tools built by xdev did, though not that specific link... I do agree that if we do this, it's only of marginal benefit. Warner _______________________________________________ freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-toolchain-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
