Message-ID: <4A743B8E.4090309@renta.net>
Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 22:56:46 +1000
From: Mark Constable <markc@renta.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090719)
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] Attempting x86_64 build
References: <4A73EA4D.7030204@renta.net> <1249119848.19561.1282.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <1249119848.19561.1282.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Timo Ter=E4s wrote:
> We could very easily add "LITE" version that lacks package signature
> verification and other stuff. In that version we could provide a
> static version of sha1 for calculating the digest.

That may be a good strategy for multiple archs.

> You do not want openssl at all in your final system, or is it
> just inconvenience during the initial build?

I will want it on the final system but it's proving to be the
package that is most difficult to build.

>> . should I drop back to pre v1.9 and use the scripted apk tools?
>=20
> It'd be nicer if we got worked out the new stuff so that it is
> usable to boot strap the build root.

A script based system would be easier for porting to different
archs but I will stick with the latest apk-tools.

Natanael Copa wrote:
> I doubt. And you will need perl for lot other stuff too. Everything that
> involves autoconf/automake and things like kernel.

I think the latest kernel has just had the last perl script removed.

> Bootstrapping does require perl at an early stage.

I find it's mostly for things like docs and ancillary stuff that
could be avoided with some care.

> I think the way to do bootstrapping is use a static version of
> apk-tools. You could probably use a 32 bit static, or if you want, a 64
> bit static built on a glibc host. It will be ugly big but it will get
> you started.

Could you spare a hint how to produce a static apk-tools using v1.9?

> Does buildroot provide gcc, binutils and gnu make?

Yes it does.

My first attempt was missing things like file, perl and other basics
but I've managed to build them and install them directly to /usr.
Thanks for the links and suggestions but I think I have just enough
up and running to be worth continuing with. ATM I am stuck on openssl
where it's complaining about a missing ftime reference and I see that
a possible solution is included with the Apline uclibc package but
not with the buildroot version... I just now tried to build uclibc
and install it but everything segfaulted, so I copied back the uclibc
libs from the buildroot tarball and things are working again (whew!).

If anyone feels like creating static apk-tools and abuild packages
then I could probably skip over this part and just continue building
key core packages until a fresh install of those packages is possible.

Also, if anyone is interested in this x86_64 buidlroot system then I
could zip it up to about a 150Mb tarball.

--markc



---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---