Greetings Anthony,
Thank you for the detailed response. I greatly appreciate your time.
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:44 AM Anthony J. Bentley <anth...@anjbe.name>
wrote:
> Hi Tracey,
>
> Base Pr1me writes:
> > Is there anyone willing and have time to look at the attached wip and
> > give me some feedback on what I'm doing wrong? I can't get the thing
> > to build a package.
> >
> > Everything runs through fake properly, but errors with "Bad package
> > name" when package creation runs.
>
> Package names require a package version; see packages-specs(7).
>
>
Gotcha. I thought it was something along those lines, but with the
unconventional nature of what I'm trying to do, I couldn't get it to version
the "right" stuff. Thanks for pointing out that man page, which I've
overlooked.
There are some basic requirements for a port that this one doesn't
> meet. First, it has to come from a versioned source, but you're
> building from the (presumably volatile) "lx106" branch. Second,
> it looks like you're trying to package not crosstool-NG itself, but
> a toolchain generated from it. So your build process actually
> builds and installs crosstool-NG during post-configure?
>
> @cd ${WRKSRC} && gmake && gmake install && \
> ./ct-ng xtensa-lx106-elf
>
>
Yes, I am installing the crosstool-NG to the working directory to create the
final, actual needed product. I wondered if this was violating some ports
methodology.
Before I did that, crosstool-NG was just installing itself to the
system. EEK! It was an ugly mess.
I'll have to see what can be done with a two-ports approach.
However, after the xtensa install, I wouldn't want the crosstool just
hanging
around on my system, hence the reason for putting it in the pobj directory
to
build from there and be cleaned up. All it is good for is generating
xtensa-lx106-elf.
> Please, don't do that!!
>
>
Ok. LOL.
> You should first create a port for crosstool-NG, and have your xtensa
> port depend on that port.
>
Third, this doesn't appear to be regular crosstool-NG, but a third-party
> fork. The ports tree does have some third-party forks of bigger projects,
> but I'd like to request a justification of why this toolchain can't be
> built from vanilla crosstool-NG. You might be encouraged to integrate
> the necessary features upstream.
>
>
The lx106 branch has been changed to specifically build the compilers needed
for esp8266 chips and their hardware abstraction layer elements. The master
crosstool-NG branch will not build this.
For now, I'm getting what I need built. I'll take some time later to see if
there is a way to build the xtensa-lx106-elf toolchain, perhaps without
using
the crosstool-NG stuff.
Thanks again,
Tracey
> --
> Anthony J. Bentley
>
