On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 01:55:40PM +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2013/02/08 12:28, John Long wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 07:03:23AM -0500, Brian Callahan wrote: > > > > > Has this ever worked for you? > > > > No, this is the first time I tried to build it on this box. > > > > > AFAIK, mips64 as a host has been broken for a few years now... > > > > I wasn't aware of it. I checked the makefile before trying to build the > > port and it has > > > > ONLY_FOR_ARCHS= amd64 arm hppa i386 mips64 mips64el powerpc sparc > > sparc64 > > It wasn't tested on all of these. In -current the list has been trimmed > greatly.
arm / hppa / mips64 and sparc were removed. arm was never confirmed but it should have built. sparc built Ok but sparc packages were not being built and now sparc v7/v8 support has been removed as run-time breakage had crept in and no one upstream cared about fixing it. hppa was running into an issue that was thought to be a gcc bug and I worked with Pascal to get gcc 4.6 up on hppa but it seems like the issue is probably in binutils, but does it really make sense building on hppa when it has no X support? mips64 is the only arch on that list that I'd actually like to see re-enabled if possible as it has X support and is fast enough to be somewhat usable. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
