On Monday, 5 August 2013 02:31:54 Sam Fourman Jr. wrote: > Would there also be the possibility to have i386-wine as a source-code > > > port, and build from i386 installation? That avoids cross-compiling. > > > > One could build an i386 installation either from amd64 or previous i386 > > installation, then build i386-wine and other desired ports when booted > > into > > the i386 installation. > > > > This i386 installation would be on another partition or another disk (USB > > 3.0 stick or USB 3.0 hard-drive partition?), and from the amd64 > > installation, the i386 installation could be mounted on /compat/i386. > > > > With a USB hard drive, if not directly bootable, the loader and kernel > > could be copied to another boot disk/partition, and root could be set for > > the USB hard-drive partition. My USB 3.0 hard drive, Western Digital My > > Book Essential, is not recognized by the BIOS/UEFI or GRUB2, but is > > accessible from Linux or FreeBSD. > > > > Tom-- > > Can't we just have the port build wine in a i386 jail? eg it would require > the FreeBSD sources, build the jail... etc.. it seems like a LOT, but > honestly whats wrong with it... ill do the testing
Hi Sam / Thomas Well, when compiling on i386 the port is "source based". I am reluctant to bring in the i386 environment bootstrapping logic within the port (especially given there are so many different ways - and personal preferences - on how to do it). I also think it is not appropriate, in my opinion, for a port to do so much. Given that nothing stops an individual from setting up such an environment manually (such as how I do it to create the packages) I think the port offers enough functionality as is. I hope this clarifies my position on this, and thank you for your feedback :-)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
