On Tue, Jun 05, 2007, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> [...]
> > for the moment, on the i386, I have to create two virtual packages,
> > as suggested by Bill (binutils and gcc).
>
> A "gcc" package should be enough as this is the only one requiring
> "binutils". OTOH, is GCC or Binutils the actual problem under Mac OS X?
> I guess it is Binutils and stock GCC works, right? Or in other words:
> would it work if we use the "gcc" package but without the "binutils"
> package (instead the system ld/as etc are used)?
Ok, I've hacked "binutils", "gcc" and "openpkg-import" a little bit
and now you can try out the following two things to get your OpenPKG
instance working:
1. The regular method:
The latest "binutils" package now builds without as(1), ld(1) and
strip(1) now under Darwin / Mac OS X. In case those three tools are
the major problem makers under Mac OS X this now could solve the
issue. Just install "binutils" and "gcc" the regular way and see
whether a package which requires "gcc" now really builds fine and
also _WORKS_ under run-time.
2. The replacement method:
In case approach (1) fails, you can try to replace the "binutils"
and "gcc" packages with virtual packages containing symlinks to the
system commands. For this install OpenPKG package "openpkg-import"
with options "with_binutils=yes" and perhaps even "with_gcc=yes" set.
Please give feedback whether one of the above approach solves the
Binutils/GCC problems under Mac OS X.
Ralf S. Engelschall
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.engelschall.com
______________________________________________________________________
OpenPKG http://openpkg.org
User Communication List openpkg-users@openpkg.org
