Date: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 11:11:41 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@yes.no> To: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu>, John Birrell <jb@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-lib@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/lib/csu/alpha Makefile Message-ID: <19980312111141.18854@follo.net> In-Reply-To: <19980311212112.54062@hydrogen.nike.efn.org>; from John-Mark Gurney on Wed, Mar 11, 1998 at 09:21:12PM -0800 References: <199803112041.MAA03395@freefall.freebsd.org> <19980311212112.54062@hydrogen.nike.efn.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 11, 1998 at 09:21:12PM -0800, John-Mark Gurney wrote: > wouldn't most of this hoopla go away if we built our tools static > instead of dynamic? also, it would allow us to not build the shared > libs when initially building the tools... > > I've also thought about digging in to see about using your x86 box to > do a buildworld, but end up with alpha or sparc binaries... I think > this would help the porting effort among other things... > > anybody have any objections to these ideas going into the tree (after > testing of course :) )? The 'static tools' idea is one I'm slightly sceptic of - it depends on how easy it would be to switch back and forth, I guess. As for crossbuilding: Do it! (But be aware that there are a lot of irritating small issues to it - NetBSD hasn't got functional cross-building for all platforms). Eivind.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980312111141.18854>