Here's the latest iteration from openbsd-wip with jca's new devel/x86_64-elf/ toolchain instead of devel/binutils.
Packages and works fine for me. Feedback? OK? 22.12.2025 03:13, Klemens Nanni пишет: > 21.12.2025 20:42, Klemens Nanni пишет: >> 21.12.2025 15:42, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas пишет: >>> On Sat, Dec 13, 2025 at 05:07:39PM +0000, Klemens Nanni wrote: >>>> 22.11.2025 14:48, Klemens Nanni пишет: >>>>> The port itself supports any architecture, but builds only amd64 and arm64 >>>>> as others have not been tested (riscv64 and loongson might be of >>>>> interest). >>>>> >>>>> It requires GNU tools incl. compiler and linker, we have everything except >>>>> - ports@ "binutils: enable ld.bfd ?" >>>>> >>>>> Once all knobs and found and set properly, GNU make compiles all files >>>>> always compiles all files (see https://dox.ipxe.org/ifdef_harmful.html) >>>>> and then links targets according to config. >>>>> >>>>> I want to be able to serve images for several architectures from a single >>>>> netboot server and avoid cross compilation, so this port uses MACHINE_ARCH >>>>> in PKGNAME and sets PKG_ARCH=*; per-arch files don't conflict and even >>>>> per-platform (e.g. EFI or BIOS) files seem to end up with unique tuples >>>>> of what upstream calls drivers and extensions, see Files below as well as >>>>> https://ipxe.org/appnote/buildtargets. >>>>> >>>>> Then I can serve, e.g. ipxe.efi over TFTP or HTTP and further do whatever >>>>> on the clients, for example through autoexec.ipxe, which it tries to load >>>>> from the server by default. >>>> Here's an updated and tidied version. As with binutils, I left support and >>>> merely omitted/commented arm64 in ONLY_FOR_ARCHS. >>>> >>>> The port is available in openbsd-wip. >>>> >>>> Feedback? OK to import once ports@ "binutils: enable ld.bfd ?" is settled? >>> >>> Not ok as is. Quoting my latest reply to the ld.bfd thread: >>> |I still think that's the wrong way to go. I see no point tying our >>> |hands with building standalone programs using a generic "native >>> |ports-gcc" + "native devel/binutils" toolchain, when all that is >>> |needed is a freestanding toolchain. >>> | >>> |Who will fix net/ipxe when it's on the way of a ports-gcc or devel/gas >>> |update? On this matter: you've explicitely made the devel/gas and >>> |devel/binutils ports tightly bound, making it impossible to update >>> |devel/gas without updating devel/binutils. Someone updating devel/gas >>> |would then feel forced to check that the new devel/binutils version >>> |can still build net/ipxe on all architectures where it is enabled. >>> | >>> |All of this disappears if you use cross-compiling with a stable >>> |toolchain like u-boot does. >>> >>> The diff below is a *PoC* to build ipxe for aarch64 using >>> devel/arm-none-eabi/*,aarch64, allowing us to cross-compile from amd64 >>> and others if desired (tested, build succeeds then fails at pcbios, >>> but this is only a PoC). _I haven't tested the resulting aarch64 >>> standalone executables_. >> Right, i missed arm-none-eabi/gcc which has ld.bfd, thanks. >> BIOS on arm64 is not supported, so it cannot build. >> >> amd64 from my new port tarball boots fine, arm64 gets tested later. >> >>> Obviously such a freestanding toolchain doesn't exist for i386/x86_64, >>> so we'd have to add that first if we wanted to go on the same path for >>> all architectures. Since I don't have a need for such a toolchain, >>> I'm not volunteering for the job. >> >> amd64 can build natively and cross every other architecture. >> >> I did that now through ONLY_FOR_ARCHS=amd64 FLAVORS=aarch64 FLAVOR= >> together with proper Makefile bits such that new architectures can be >> added for native- and/or cross-builds (after build and boot tests). > > > fixed port after rereading upstream docs and code: > - do not build arm64 .iso, fetched isolinux is amd64-only > - pass CROSS and drop ARCH as per "Cross Compile" > https://ipxe.org/appnote/buildtargets > - replace do-build with ALL_TARGET > - turn do-install into single pax command > - tidy up makefile, less variables/ifs/loops > > to illustrate, this yields ipxe-arm32-1.21.1pl1152.tgz: > > |@@ -46,3 +46,3 @@ MAINTAINER = Klemens Nanni <[email protected]> > | # Cross-compilation architectures. > |-FLAVORS = aarch64 > |+FLAVORS = aarch64 arm > | FLAVOR ?= # native build > |@@ -61,4 +61,4 @@ BUILD_DEPENDS = > devel/arm-none-eabi/binutils,${FLAVOR} \ > | devel/arm-none-eabi/gcc,${FLAVOR} > |-IPXE_ARCH = ${FLAVOR:aarch64=arm64} > |-CROSS = ${FLAVOR}-none-${FLAVOR:aarch64=elf}- > |+IPXE_ARCH = ${FLAVOR:aarch64=arm64:arm=arm32} > |+CROSS = ${FLAVOR}-none-${FLAVOR:aarch64=elf:arm=eabi}- > | .endif > > it's in the port, but with arm commented in FLAVORS (until someone needs it). > > images work for me and update-plist changes nothing. > >> >> Feedback? OK?
ipxe.tgz
Description: application/compressed-tar
