On 06/08/13 14:17, Glen Barber wrote: > On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 12:10:16PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote: >> On Jun 8, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Glen Barber wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 05:22:56PM -0400, Glen Barber wrote: >>>>> Has anyone else tried the i386 memstick and having the same problem? >>>>> >>>> Hmm. Thanks for the report. I'll take a look at the logs for i386, but >>>> they are generated the same way as the amd64, so in theory should not >>>> have any noticable difference. >>>> >>> For amd64 and i386, native binaries are built, and installed into >>> scratch directories; for powerpc and powerpc64, I just use the amd64 >>> binaries, because I cannot directly use the chroot binaries for >>> non-native architecture. >>> >>> The scripts chroot into the scratch directories, and run the "real" >>> release builds. >> Have you tried using Crochet for this sort of thing? >> >> Since it was designed from the ground up for cross-building >> bootable images, it should avoid these issues. >> > I have not, primarily because I was not aware of crochet when > I originally started this. Although, by using the release stuff from > the base system, we do get a weekly run-test of the 'make release' bits > in head/ and stable/9/, so in theory, there would be no surprises when > it is -RELEASE time. > >> The only fundamental limit right now is that Crochet uses >> the host system to build the UFS filesystems, so it can't >> build big-endian MIPS images on i386, for example. >> >> > Yes, I have this same issue with sparc64. > Why not use makefs? It can build cross-endian UFS images. -NathanReceived on Sat Jun 08 2013 - 18:18:58 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:38 UTC