Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 07:45:29 -0600 (CST) From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: Satoshi - the Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /var/db/pkg/.mkversion Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9904010731260.3443-100000@nomad.dataplex.net> In-Reply-To: <199904011308.FAA53495@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 1 Apr 1999, Satoshi - the Wraith - Asami wrote: > * From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> > * very short sided. > sighted :> Yes, a slight transfer error between my brain and 'sendmail'. > * There are two distinct environments to be considered. > * The HOST environment and the TARGET environment. > This issue has nothing to do with hosts and targets. The ports tree > has never supported building ports on a system with a version other > than the one that is going to run it. (And we don't intend to start > doing it any time soon either, sorry. ;) I recognize that. However, I bring it up because there are a number of programmers who still fail to recognize the distinction. I hope that we can get the rest (non-ports) of the build system into shape. Any "solution" for the ports should be one that also works elsewhere. As a result, I would hate to see yet another inadequate mechanism become entrenched. I don't think that "ports" ever stands a real chance in making it to cross compilation because too many of the components rely on autoconf style configuration. This often trys to decide which representation to use by "trial and error". It is virtually impossible for "you" to police all those ports authors and have them maintain cross-compile compliance. 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.4.05.9904010731260.3443-100000>