Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 12:38:03PM +0100, Bob Bishop wrote: > > Apparently, current dependencies are much more spread, e.g. /bin/sh > > is dynamically linked [etc] > > That seems like a bad mistake, because it would prevent even booting > single-user if rtld/libraries are broken. When one enters single user they are prompted for which shell to use. If /bin/sh is broken due to being dynamic, '/rescue/sh' will likely still work. -- -- David (obr...@freebsd.org) ___ freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-toolchain-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 07:52:01AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > You could use /rescue/sh as your single-user shell. Of course, that would > perhaps let you still be able to recompile things if you had a static > toolchain. :) Having the toolchain static has saved me in exactly this way. -- -- David (obr...@freebsd.org) ___ freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-toolchain-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: [RFC] Un-staticise the toolchain
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 11:03:17AM +0100, Bob Bishop wrote: > Yes. You to have a statically linked /rescue/sh on board, so what's the > point of /bin/sh being dynamic? While you and I agree on this, the primary reason we went with a dynamically linked root was for PAM and NSS support -- which are dlopen'ed. And thus requires using a shared libc. -- -- David (obr...@freebsd.org) ___ freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-toolchain-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: GCC withdraw
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 06:02:06PM +0100, David Chisnall wrote: > rather busy organising the DevSummit. The notes for the sessions will > be posted to various mailing lists soon (and summarised for a special > status report), but since the ports and toolchain build sessions are > already largely up you can check these on the wiki. You'll notice that > in both sessions the topic of removing gcc / libstdc++ was raised and > there was no objection (not sure if it's in the notes, but there was a > lot of support during the ports session from people who didn't want the > pain of maintaining compatibility with gcc-in-base, and especially with > g++/libstdc++ in base). And committers need to learn that Devsummit discussions (and optional wiki's) are just like IRC ones -- we're all not there. But we're on the mailing lists. That's how we communicate far-and-wide. John and others bring up really good points. Until GCC is no longer used to build FreeBSD on any platform it should remain in all platforms. If part of your reasoning is to free up "gcc" and "g++" commands for ports -- fine, but change the names /usr/bin/gcc and /usr/bin/g++ on all platforms for something else. /usr/bin/fbsd-gcc & /usr/bin/fbsd-g++ or what not. -- -- David (obr...@freebsd.org) ___ freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-toolchain-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
