[Aboriginal] Possibly winding down the project.

[Rob Landley]

On 05/04/2016 10:04 AM, Alan Post wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 03:35:13PM +0100, Paul Sherwood wrote:
> <snip>
>>> Sigh. I _can_ fix everything that's currently wrong with the old
>>> toolchains (although it's probably a couple weeks of debugging,
>>> that's
>>> just what I _know_ about). Or I could ask Rich to do native
>>> toolchains,
>>> make a really small shell script to build and paclage a toybox
>>> userspace, and move on with my life. I'm sticking on Ubuntu 14.04
>>> (last
>>> non-systemd LTS version) until it's end of lifed, which gives me a
>>> deadline to get a working self-hosting android workstation working...
>>>
>>> Anybody else care to venture an opinion?
>>
>> For gcc+binutils, the tide seems to be against us.
>>
>> While android is fine for various scenarios, we'd prefer to support
>> a route with a broader sponsor base.
>>
>> Would you be interested in collaboration to move forward with
>> Aboriginal on all possible architectures using clang + musl?
>>
> 
> Hello Rob, I've submitted a bug report and a minor patch to you
> over the years.  I find Aboriginal tremendously useful so I'll
> weigh in.
> 
> My use case for Aboriginal is building binaries that I can
> distribute across Centos/RHEL, Debian/Ubuntu, and SUSE.  The
> OpenSSL fiasco got me serious about rebuilding dependencies,
> which then exposed problems in the age of my toolchain.
> 
> Paul's clang + musl proposal is more-or-less where I see myself
> going -- for all the reasons discussed in this thread.  I already
> have to build cmake for other packages I depend on so that is only
> regular pain rather than acute pain.
> 
> I'm interested in Paul's idea.

I'm poking at an llvm build according to the BLFS instructions, but
leaving it to run for hours it still hasn't completed. It takes longer
to build than the a whole aboriginal target did (cross toolchain, native
toolchain, root filesystem, and kernel combined). (And yes, I've told it
--enable-targets=x86_64 so at least this time I don't come back in the
morning to find it building powerpc stuff.)

I'm much less discouraged about llvm since learning that cmake doesn't
seem to require a python build prequisite (or at least there's a version
of it that doesn't), but it's a serious pig to build isn't it?

Still, maybe that's a way forward. Doesn't support all the targets yet,
but...

Rob