Havard Eidnes <he%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes: > The NetBSD/powerpc 8.0 bootstrap does not work on 9.0, due to > some C++ ABI markings which are not portable across those two > (I've muttered here(?) about that earlier). It doesn't look like > this is a universal problem, though. Therefore I have a local > 9.0 bootstrap kit for powerpc. However, the tarballs produced by > the rust build are not tagged with OS version, so it is mildly > annoying to have to rename the kits after they've been built. > > I'll admit that I've not been as thorough as I perhaps should > have been in testing the other 8.0 bootstrap kits on 9.0 (wasn't > there some fallout on i386?). The issue is that while generally binaries linked for 8 against *system libs* work fine on 9, and current, with compat80, that bootstrap kits on 8 linked against openssl, which is from pkgsrc, because 8 base openssl is old, and that package is generally not installed on 9. >> Are you able to a construct a rust binary package that could be used to >> e.g. build rsvg on earmv7hf-el? Something that could be part of >> rust-bin? (I am assuming upstream does not build for NetBSD/earmv7.) > > The rust-bin package only supports official rust binaries. I'm > not up for changing that. That said, the cross-built bootstrap > kits appear to contain most of what a binary distribution would > contain, so it is not entirely inconceivable that it could be > used. I don't care much about the officialness, and don't see the harm of rust-bin having a TNF-built binary on systems where upstream doesn't publish one. To me the big deal is that it's wrapping a binary. But, I also don't care if we have a rust-bin2 or something, that is selected for systems that can't build from source and for which we have a TNF-built binary, that's ok.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature