XFree86: Builds cleanly, seems to run. Talking to the maintainer about some differences in what it builds between the normal and NetBSD versions, and how to resolve those. That is, however, the only obvious remaining issue before the packages are public. (Well, technically it still has a build dependancy on bsdmainutils, which breaks, but it only uses 1 utility, so I have that installed manually).
GCC 2.95: Fails many of it's build tests. Also, in practice, appears to rather impressively break any C++ code on the system, whether compiled with the old or new GCC version. I have reverted my chroot, and things are much happier. I'll look into it, but this is a non-trivial problem. GCC 3.0: Doesn't build with the current release in sid, which *looks* like it's a 3.0-branch CVS from last week (3.0.4 or so). Going to try to dig up a current development branch so that I can drop it's tarball in place, and see if that works better. Also build-depends on a newer binutils, which is reported to break things. GCC defaults: Currently compiled to default to 2.95. However, I think that 3.0 is a much better default for new ports, and would prefer to use this instead, once we have a working set of 3.0 packages. Folks should give opinions on this one... Misc: The regex routines in libc appear to be the home of, or trigger of, stack corruption. This is what is causing the segfaults in ed, and I suspect it is also causing the 'sed' build failures. Compiling and dumping a new libc into the chroot did not produce any difference, however. It may be compiler issues (thus the efforts on getting a sane set of GCC packages which has failed so far). Native packaging: I'm likely to play with trying to package at least some of the /usr/src/lib stuff later today (such as libc, libarch, etc). On the topic of libarch: the source should be called libarch. Should the binaries be called 'libarch' as well, or 'libi386', 'libsparc', etc? Personally, I vote for 'libarch', because otherwise the dependancies will end up being a huge mess... and since switching arches includes replacing 90% of all the *other* packages, as well, this shouldn't be a problem. Thoughts? -- *************************************************************************** Joel Baker System Administrator - lightbearer.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/
