svn commit: r258672 - in head: . share/mk

[Andriy Gapon]

on 27/11/2013 08:34 Peter Wemm said the following:
> On 11/26/13, 9:03 PM, Glen Barber wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 04:54:24AM +0000, Peter Wemm wrote:
>>> Author: peter
>>> Date: Wed Nov 27 04:54:23 2013
>>> New Revision: 258672
>>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/258672
>>>
>>> Log:
>>>   At great personal risk, change the default for LIB32 from yes to no.  As
>>>   mentioned in UPDATING, you can even do it as an as-needed operation after
>>>   doing a buildworld/installworld.  You can set WITH_LIB32=yes in make.conf
>>>   or src.conf.
>>>
>>
>> Thank you.  Long overdue, IMHO.
>>
>> Glen
>>
> 
> A slightly longer explanation of what I was thinking:
> 
> - There's a new round of 'make -j' problems lurking in there.  We are
> missing chunks of the ordering glue that cause libraries to be built in the
> right order when they depend on each other.
> - It's a waste of cpu time for the usual case, particularly for the 11.x
> cycle for the next 1-2 years.

Do this change and this point make sense if everyone building virtualbox (and
perhaps running it) has to install lib32 anyway?

pre-everything::
.if ${ARCH} == "amd64"
.if !exists(/usr/lib32/libc.so)
        @${ECHO} 'Requires 32-bit libraries installed under /usr/lib32.'
        @${ECHO} 'Do: cd /usr/src; make build32 install32; /etc/rc.d/ldconfig
restart'
        @${FALSE}
.endif
.endif

Just in case, I have no clue why this is required.

> - We don't build them properly - we invent cpu flags etc.
> 
> The usual use case for 32 bit binaries seems to be:
> - running a 32 bit chroot or jail - this is unaffected.
> - running old binaries, usually from 4.x or 6.x when the 64 bit port was
> really green - WITH_LIB32 doesn't actually help much with this because most
> of the libraries are missing.
> 
> It seems more likely we can do a better job with packages.  With some
> massaging, we should be able to use the compat-6.x/i386 libraries as-is, and
> solve the "old 4.x/6.x binary" issue in one go.
> 
> However, ld-elf32.so.1 does require special handling.  I have something in
> mind that might make this moot though.
> 
> I suspect I've made the powerpc folks angry though...
> 


-- 
Andriy Gapon