Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 09:12:45 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-embedded@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Ports cross-compilation Message-ID: <3B91BA0A-F5E8-4C57-8F09-0583B375C6D9@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmonE6twJ519k=Q1_R9RNYi4ZP19kjYh7yBB5mrUtG9iEgQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <4ED6FD47.6050704@bluezbox.com> <96407605-79A9-4AE3-AC2F-13BD97943153@lassitu.de> <447CC818-CEA3-46B9-A15F-E0FA737B0EB4@bluezbox.com> <CAJ-VmonE6twJ519k=Q1_R9RNYi4ZP19kjYh7yBB5mrUtG9iEgQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Dec 1, 2011, at 1:15 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> .. hm. thinking about it, why not have a port variable flag that marks
> a port as "cross compiles" ?
>=20
> Then we could (in theory) do a cross-compile test run based on which
> ports in the ports tree have this variable set?
In the doodle I did years ago, I had a CROSS_BUILD_FLAVOR =3D {trivial, =
gnuconf, custom} and had that drive some of the infrastructure. This =
didn't make it into the final hack we used at symmetricom, however. =
Some of that can be inferred from other variables, but we didn't bother =
to try to build stuff we didn't need and that might not be working.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3B91BA0A-F5E8-4C57-8F09-0583B375C6D9>