[Exherbo-dev] Crossing over to cross

Alex Elsayed eternaleye at gmail.com
Sun Mar 1 22:25:25 UTC 2015


Benedikt Morbach wrote:

> On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool
> <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote:
>> I think you missed one of the core points of all this work.  This is
>> intended to remove multi build for the C class.  The use of multi build
>> will persist, but for python, ruby, (perl?) ABIs, not the C class.
> 
> Just imagine I wrote multibuild_c there.
> 
>> Does something like `cave resolve -m cross -E i686 wine' not work for
>> that? Yes, we would need to enhance the current label handling to
>> understand
>> cross.  However, given that the previous should allow you to build a
>> cross-compiled wine (as an example), I think that we can live with this
>> for the short term.
> 
> But all the build+run dependencies need to be cross compiled too and
> whenever I did that, it installed wine to ::installed-i686 and everything
> else to ::installed.
> I may be grossly misunderstanding/misusing -E, but there doesn't seem
> to be _any_
> documentation for it afaict.
> (well not actually wine, but it's the same for everything that has
> dependencies)

More that you're misunderstanding cross somewhat -
--make cross causes the resolution as a whole to build for cross, so you're 
basically building a full Wine (and the deps) for i686. The -E is to cover 
that we currently don't handle multiple cross-targets being available, so 
you have multiple environments, each of which only have one cross-target.

However, Wine is something of an odd case. Its buildystem _is_ rather more 
designed for multibuild_c style usage, although it can be used in a more 
cross-like way: see "Parallel Install of 64bit and 32bit Packages" on
http://wiki.winehq.org/Wine64ForPackagers

>> I think that we can have a slightly lower bar for the merge.  My
>> intention
>> here is two fold.  One, it reduces the barrier to entry, allowing more
>> people to contribute towards it.  cross has languished a bit as of late,
>> and
>> I would like to see that change.  The second objective is to reduce the
>> overhead of maintaining cross.  There were issues that were introduced
>> into
>> cross due to merging.  Having to maintain paludis and arbor is a fair
>> amount of work. There is no reason to not also branch all the other
>> repositories, which only increases the amount of effort required to keep
>> everything in sync.
> 
> Agreed on all points. If the above actually works I'm fine with merging.
> I just don't want to break Exherbo for anyone who uses multibuild_c: 32 to
> get skype, wine or something else to work, as I imagine that that would
> upset some ;-)
> 
> Cheers
> Benedikt





More information about the Exherbo-dev mailing list