Re: pkgsrc cross-compilation and other miscellaneous patches

[Alistair Crooks <agc%pkgsrc.org@localhost>]

On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 01:35:15AM +0000, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
>    Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 19:22:37 +0200
>    From: Alistair Crooks <agc%pkgsrc.org@localhost>
> 
>    + namespace - in mk.conf can we prefix some of the more generic names
>    with PKGSRC e.g. PKGSRC_CROSS_COMPILE or PKGSRC_USE_CROSS_COMPILE
>    instead of USE_CROSS_COMPILE, etc. 
> 
> No objection here, but I think we can make this substitution after
> I've committed the functional changes.

Yes, that would be great (committing first, then changing)
 
>    + i think you mention somewhere that some form of cross pkg-config
>    is needed, but i'm having difficulty finding it now. sounds like this
>    would be a win.
> 
> Might have been in conversation on IRC, but I don't think I've seen
> any major problems with pkg-config yet.  There are some issues with
> XML catalogues which might have come up in relation to pkg-config, but
> the only big cross-compilation tool problem I've hit so far is
> libtool.

Ah, yes, libtool, that was it.
 
>    + we should note in the pkgsrc entry's Makefile that the entry is
>    cross-compilable (lesson learned from 14 years ago and adding
>    different OS support to pkgsrc). over time, this will hopefully be
>    less important, but in the early stages, it's a great way to identify
>    what needs to be done
> 
> Is there an advantage to marking pkgsrc entries rather than just doing
> bulk builds and checking the report to see what's broken?

I think so - having it in the entry Makefile means that whether a
package is cross-compilable or not can be determined a priori from the
dependency graph.  That doesn't come from bulk build reports. It also
is liable to change dynamically, and having separate reports from a few
days back might not help in that case.

>    Having said all that, these are truly minor concerns, and I would love
>    to see this in pkgsrc as soon as we possibly can. Pretty please?
> 
> Is that an OK to commit?  All the patches for cross-compilation, or
> only a subset?

Yes, a huge OK from me to commit - all the patches - I would be very grateful!

Thanks once again,
Al