On Sun, Dec 21, 2025 at 12:40:05PM +0000, Klemens Nanni wrote: > 21.12.2025 15:26, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas пишет: > > > > FWIW, I fixed the check introduced in binutils/Makefile rev 1.24. See > > http://build-failures.rhaalovely.net/aarch64/2025-12-17/devel/binutils.log > > Thanks!
I thought I quickfixed the non-amd64 cases, but turns out I broke packaging altogether. A bit pissed off to have to pile fix upon fix upon what started as a hack of yours. There is no native OpenBSD support in devel/binutils gld.bfd, so providing it under that name is a waste of other people's time. I'd suggest to revert your ld addition in devel/binutils to unbreak the port. [...] > >>> Usage is limited and net/ipxe already is a non-trivial port, > >>> so I just went with native builds, which do work just fine. > > > > I still think that's the wrong way to go. I see no point tying our > > hands with building standalone programs using a generic "native > > ports-gcc" + "native devel/binutils" toolchain, when all that is > > needed is a freestanding toolchain. > > > > Who will fix net/ipxe when it's on the way of a ports-gcc or devel/gas > > update? On this matter: you've explicitely made the devel/gas and > > devel/binutils ports tightly bound, making it impossible to update > > devel/gas without updating devel/binutils. Someone updating devel/gas > > would then feel forced to check that the new devel/binutils version > > can still build net/ipxe on all architectures where it is enabled. > > Fixing it would be up to me as maintainer, if that doesn't go anywhere > we could always mark such leaf ports as BROKEN so as not to block progress. > > > All of this disappears if you use cross-compiling with a stable > > toolchain like u-boot does. > > Wouldn't it require ld.bfd still which devel/arm-none-eabi/gcc/ lacks? > > Regardless of cross-compilation, amd64 does and will require native tools > from devel/binutils, so I don't see a way around building ld.bfd there. > > Either way, net/ipxe is amd64-only as of now. Starting with this and > having failed with the native binutils approach, I'd be happy to try > adapting u-boot's approach. > > Do you want this before import or can we work on it in-tree? If you want to have amd64 support in net/ipxe, please consider adding a dedicated x86_64-elf toolchain (I can try to help with that). Your approach using the system compiler and a dumb devel/binutils gld.fd just won't be reliable in the long run, all of this for a rather niche port you seem to find useful. -- jca
