mvanroy at bellsouth.net
Fri Jan 12 18:43:09 UTC 2007
Lucas Hazel wrote:
> No, not every port needs to be modified, only the ones that require
> modification. Also you are confusing multiarch with multilib.
Not exactly, but for the end user, one kind of precludes the other.
> I should also point out, that in the modifications I have made to the
> pkgmk script, a port will attempt to use it's arch subdirectory, but
> will default to the base port. Also, that if the target arch is the
> same at the host arch the $name-$arch#... naming scheme is not used,
> rather it reverts to the usually $name#... package name.
> I suppose in such a ports tree there should be a better method to
> define a difference between multilib and pure64 (this would
> essenstially just be a naming mechanism). However the main intention of
> the multiarch port structure was to also allow other architectures to
> be integrated into the structure, not just x86_64/compat32, so that all
> developers of CRUX could work together rather than in the splintered
> environment that currently exists.
> I have spoken to some of the CRUXPPC developers, they are interested in
> the idea and there may be the possibility I will be merging my ports
> tree with theirs into such a multiarch system.
This sounds great. The hard part would be to convince the "mainliners" ,
which would actually be the way to go. Otherwise merging into CRUXPPC
would be good.When crux64 died (or at least fainted), I was looking at
T2, which applies the same approach, but I liked CRUX and preferred to
stay on as long as possible.
I also modified my pkgmk, but if you could send me a patch, i would be
glad check out your method and hopefully get on the same track.
BTW, due to time constraints, I consider myself an end user rather than
a developer, but it's seems more and more involvement is necessary to
keep the 64 thing going.
LOL - Mike
More information about the crux64