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 :-)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply via email to