Please add more information to this, if you have it. https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/wiki/Bootstrapping-CC Basically we do need to do *something*. I'm not 100% convinced Lion will come with the unix CC toolchain like some insist. And even if that is true, we should have an option for people who don't upgrade straight away.
On 11/mar/2011, at 11.27, Max Howell wrote: > Please add more information to this, if you have it. > > https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/wiki/Bootstrapping-CC > > Basically we do need to do *something*. > > I'm not 100% convinced Lion will come with the unix CC toolchain like some insist. And even if that is true, we should have an option for people who don't upgrade straight away. When you go to <https://developer.apple.com/xcode/index.php>, after logging in with a free developer membership (which was always required, if I'm not mistaken), you can still download Xcode 3 for free (under "Looking for Xcode 3?"). The download includes gcc 4.2.1, which is the same version that ships with Xcode 4. For people who just want to build homebrew formulas, the IDE makes no difference, nor does the version of Clang (since gcc is more compatible with formulas, at the moment); in other words, there is no difference between Xcode 3 and Xcode 4, and the former is still free, so I don't think there's any real problem. CL
On 13 March 2011 00:47, Camillo <camillo.lists@gmail.com> wrote: > The download includes gcc 4.2.1, which is the same version that ships > with Xcode 4. For people who just want to build homebrew formulas, the IDE > makes no difference, nor does the version of Clang (since gcc is more > compatible with formulas, at the moment); in other words, there is no > difference between Xcode 3 and Xcode 4, and the former is still free, so I > don't think there's any real problem. The problems are some symlinks have changed and we would prefer to only support one version of Xcode (if possible which it seems it isn't). -- Mike McQuaid http://mikemcquaid.com
actually theres a very real difference, xcode4 ships with just the 10.6sdk, whereas the xcode3 libraries ships with 10.5 and 10.6 sdks. and by sdk I actually mean the c-runtime libraries for the respective OS versions. Depending on you tool chain, this can lead to very mysterious problems. An excellent example of this is that as of installing xcode4 this week, haskell users of ghc7.0.2 (and earlier versions too i suppose) could no longer link to c code when compiling, which could easily be fixed by returning the 10.5 sdk directory to the updated /Developer folder. This has now been patched in how that compiler builds for subsequent haskell releases. Anyways, the point being that there is an important difference if somehwere in your tool chain theres some hard coded dependence on the 10.5skd On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Camillo <camillo.lists@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/mar/2011, at 11.27, Max Howell wrote: > > Please add more information to this, if you have it. > > https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/wiki/Bootstrapping-CC > > Basically we do need to do *something*. > > I'm not 100% convinced Lion will come with the unix CC toolchain like some > insist. And even if that is true, we should have an option for people who > don't upgrade straight away. > > > When you go to <https://developer.apple.com/xcode/index.php>, after > logging in with a free developer membership (which was always required, if > I'm not mistaken), you can still download Xcode 3 for free (under "Looking > for Xcode 3?"). The download includes gcc 4.2.1, which is the same version > that ships with Xcode 4. For people who just want to build homebrew > formulas, the IDE makes no difference, nor does the version of Clang (since > gcc is more compatible with formulas, at the moment); in other words, there > is no difference between Xcode 3 and Xcode 4, and the former is still free, > so I don't think there's any real problem. > > CL >
Will there be a ghc 7.0.3 release shortly? On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Carter Schonwald <carter.schonwald@gmail.com> wrote: > actually theres a very real difference, xcode4 ships with just the 10.6sdk, > whereas the xcode3 libraries ships with 10.5 and 10.6 sdks. and by sdk I > actually mean the c-runtime libraries for the respective OS versions. > Depending on you tool chain, this can lead to very mysterious problems. An > excellent example of this is that as of installing xcode4 this week, haskell > users of ghc7.0.2 (and earlier versions too i suppose) could no longer link > to c code when compiling, which could easily be fixed by returning the 10.5 > sdk directory to the updated /Developer folder. This has now been patched in > how that compiler builds for subsequent haskell releases. > Anyways, the point being that there is an important difference if somehwere > in your tool chain theres some hard coded dependence on the 10.5skd > > > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Camillo <camillo.lists@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 11/mar/2011, at 11.27, Max Howell wrote: >> >> Please add more information to this, if you have it. >> https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/wiki/Bootstrapping-CC >> Basically we do need to do *something*. >> I'm not 100% convinced Lion will come with the unix CC toolchain like some >> insist. And even if that is true, we should have an option for people who >> don't upgrade straight away. >> >> When you go to <https://developer.apple.com/xcode/index.php>, after >> logging in with a free developer membership (which was always required, if >> I'm not mistaken), you can still download Xcode 3 for free (under "Looking >> for Xcode 3?"). The download includes gcc 4.2.1, which is the same version >> that ships with Xcode 4. For people who just want to build homebrew >> formulas, the IDE makes no difference, nor does the version of Clang (since >> gcc is more compatible with formulas, at the moment); in other words, there >> is no difference between Xcode 3 and Xcode 4, and the former is still free, >> so I don't think there's any real problem. >> CL >
http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/5011 is the relevant ticket. I think the next stable release is going to be 7.2.x when they switch to using git rather than darcs. cf http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.haskell.glasgow.user/19604 which might be *very soon* On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Adam Vandenberg <flangy@gmail.com> wrote: > Will there be a ghc 7.0.3 release shortly? > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Carter Schonwald > <carter.schonwald@gmail.com> wrote: > > actually theres a very real difference, xcode4 ships with just the > 10.6sdk, > > whereas the xcode3 libraries ships with 10.5 and 10.6 sdks. and by sdk I > > actually mean the c-runtime libraries for the respective OS versions. > > Depending on you tool chain, this can lead to very mysterious problems. > An > > excellent example of this is that as of installing xcode4 this week, > haskell > > users of ghc7.0.2 (and earlier versions too i suppose) could no longer > link > > to c code when compiling, which could easily be fixed by returning the > 10.5 > > sdk directory to the updated /Developer folder. This has now been patched > in > > how that compiler builds for subsequent haskell releases. > > Anyways, the point being that there is an important difference if > somehwere > > in your tool chain theres some hard coded dependence on the 10.5skd > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Camillo <camillo.lists@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On 11/mar/2011, at 11.27, Max Howell wrote: > >> > >> Please add more information to this, if you have it. > >> https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/wiki/Bootstrapping-CC > >> Basically we do need to do *something*. > >> I'm not 100% convinced Lion will come with the unix CC toolchain like > some > >> insist. And even if that is true, we should have an option for people > who > >> don't upgrade straight away. > >> > >> When you go to <https://developer.apple.com/xcode/index.php>, after > >> logging in with a free developer membership (which was always required, > if > >> I'm not mistaken), you can still download Xcode 3 for free (under > "Looking > >> for Xcode 3?"). The download includes gcc 4.2.1, which is the same > version > >> that ships with Xcode 4. For people who just want to build homebrew > >> formulas, the IDE makes no difference, nor does the version of Clang > (since > >> gcc is more compatible with formulas, at the moment); in other words, > there > >> is no difference between Xcode 3 and Xcode 4, and the former is still > free, > >> so I don't think there's any real problem. > >> CL > > >
One thing that just occurred to me is that while we may be able to compile the toolchain from source and distribute it, what about header files? I don't have an OS X installation sans XCode to check at the moment, but does a fresh install of OS X have a fully stocked /usr/include? What about common Frameworks? If it doesn't, than this just got a whole lot more difficult. -Charlie
> I'm not 100% convinced Lion will come with the unix CC toolchain like some > insist. And even if that is true, we should have an option for people who > don't upgrade straight away. Do you know who put out that rumor and where I can read more about it? -- chs,
On 11 March 2011 10:27, Max Howell <max@methylblue.com> wrote: > Please add more information to this, if you have it. > https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/wiki/Bootstrapping-CC > Basically we do need to do *something*. > I'm not 100% convinced Lion will come with the unix CC toolchain like some > insist. And even if that is true, we should have an option for people who > don't upgrade straight away. What we should just do to be most Homebrew-like is to build the open-sourced versions of GCC/LLVM/other tools that Apple provide and try to recreate their setup as closely as possible. Copying Apple also encourages upstream to try and make their software work with the default OS X developer tools, something that is good for all developers using OS X. I'd suggest we then use the bottle support I implemented to produce a binary package which we bootstrap using the real Xcode 4 and then instruct users to install it along with Git in our setup instructions. I've very, very against just pointing our users at a torrent. Call me a prude but I'm not willing to work on anything of questionable legality, particularly when it's tied so closely to my career. -- Mike McQuaid http://mikemcquaid.com
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 3:18 AM, Mike McQuaid <mike@mikemcquaid.com> wrote: > On 11 March 2011 10:27, Max Howell <max@methylblue.com> wrote: > > Please add more information to this, if you have it. > > https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/wiki/Bootstrapping-CC > > Basically we do need to do *something*. > > I'm not 100% convinced Lion will come with the unix CC toolchain like > some > > insist. And even if that is true, we should have an option for people who > > don't upgrade straight away. > > What we should just do to be most Homebrew-like is to build the > open-sourced versions of GCC/LLVM/other tools that Apple provide and > try to recreate their setup as closely as possible. Copying Apple also > encourages upstream to try and make their software work with the > default OS X developer tools, something that is good for all > developers using OS X. > This sounds like the best plan to me. A big gotcha with switching away from the Apple's open source toolchain to a different version of GCC is that support for the '-arch' flag would disappear. This would break anything that uses 'ENV.universal' and probably most other methods of producing universal binaries (whatever methods Boost and Qt use, for example). It would still be possible to build multiple times and splice the results together using `lipo`... but that just sounds like a nightmare. > I'd suggest we then use the bottle support I implemented to produce a > binary package which we bootstrap using the real Xcode 4 and then > instruct users to install it along with Git in our setup instructions. > +1 This would save a lot of download time as well! :) > I've very, very against just pointing our users at a torrent. Call me > a prude but I'm not willing to work on anything of questionable > legality, particularly when it's tied so closely to my career. I am definitely not a lawyer--- but common sense tells me that if the contents of the Bottle can be legally distributed, which they should be being mostly based on GNU/BSD licensed stuff, then the method of distribution shouldn't be an issue be it http, ftp, BitTorrent or carrier pigeon. Unfortunately, the Law often has little to do with common sense :( > -- > Mike McQuaid > http://mikemcquaid.com >
I don't think I have permission to edit the page but... You need binutils as well and possibly dlcompat. I haven't done this stuff since doing gentoo stage 1 stuff! Cheers, Lee On 11 March 2011 11:18, Mike McQuaid <mike@mikemcquaid.com> wrote: > On 11 March 2011 10:27, Max Howell <max@methylblue.com> wrote: >> Please add more information to this, if you have it. >> https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/wiki/Bootstrapping-CC >> Basically we do need to do *something*. >> I'm not 100% convinced Lion will come with the unix CC toolchain like some >> insist. And even if that is true, we should have an option for people who >> don't upgrade straight away. > > What we should just do to be most Homebrew-like is to build the > open-sourced versions of GCC/LLVM/other tools that Apple provide and > try to recreate their setup as closely as possible. Copying Apple also > encourages upstream to try and make their software work with the > default OS X developer tools, something that is good for all > developers using OS X. > > I'd suggest we then use the bottle support I implemented to produce a > binary package which we bootstrap using the real Xcode 4 and then > instruct users to install it along with Git in our setup instructions. > > I've very, very against just pointing our users at a torrent. Call me > a prude but I'm not willing to work on anything of questionable > legality, particularly when it's tied so closely to my career. > > -- > Mike McQuaid > http://mikemcquaid.com > -- Kind Regards, Lee Packham MBCS http://leenux.org.uk/
Odd, I haven't restricted access and a brief parse of settings and that suggests any github user should have access. On Friday, 11 March 2011 at 12:03, Lee Packham wrote: > I don't think I have permission to edit the page but... > > You need binutils as well and possibly dlcompat. I haven't done this > stuff since doing gentoo stage 1 stuff! > > Cheers, > Lee > > On 11 March 2011 11:18, Mike McQuaid <mike@mikemcquaid.com> wrote: > > On 11 March 2011 10:27, Max Howell <max@methylblue.com> wrote: > > > Please add more information to this, if you have it. > > > https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/wiki/Bootstrapping-CC > > > Basically we do need to do *something*. > > > I'm not 100% convinced Lion will come with the unix CC toolchain like some > > > insist. And even if that is true, we should have an option for people who > > > don't upgrade straight away. > > > > What we should just do to be most Homebrew-like is to build the > > open-sourced versions of GCC/LLVM/other tools that Apple provide and > > try to recreate their setup as closely as possible. Copying Apple also > > encourages upstream to try and make their software work with the > > default OS X developer tools, something that is good for all > > developers using OS X. > > > > I'd suggest we then use the bottle support I implemented to produce a > > binary package which we bootstrap using the real Xcode 4 and then > > instruct users to install it along with Git in our setup instructions. > > > > I've very, very against just pointing our users at a torrent. Call me > > a prude but I'm not willing to work on anything of questionable > > legality, particularly when it's tied so closely to my career. > > > > -- > > Mike McQuaid > > http://mikemcquaid.com > > > > -- > Kind Regards, > > Lee Packham MBCS > http://leenux.org.uk/ >
Perhaps its worthwhile for you guys to look into this:
http://www.sandroid.org/imcross/
As a way for building your os-x binaries on a linux machine. If you
can build on linux, that then opens up Launchpad.net as your build
farm. Since homebrew are an OSS project... a big part of the culture
at launchpad.net is to be pretty open in terms of broadly welcoming
any kinds of OSS projects.
If you arent tempted by Canoical's servers, then cross-compiling on
linux still lends a pretty significant advantage in terms of other
options in regards to cheap (cloud-based) building, automation,
distribution. Wheras building on OS-x based servers is always going to
be more expensive (as its Apple hardware). Theres not a lot you can
really do to change that aspect. So thats the primary reason why I
think you should give cross compiling some serious consideration in
regards to the problems laid out here.
Of course the cost associated with such a strategy is actually the
technical challenge and not a financial one. However if you're
restricting yourself to {llvm/CC/GCC} only, then you've just chosen
probably the only softwares which have always been cross-compiled ever
since their inception. So you may already be in luck in terms of
getting access to the necessary knowledge / expertise to do this.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Max Howell <max@methylblue.com> wrote:
> Odd, I haven't restricted access and a brief parse of settings and that
> suggests any github user should have access.
>
> On Friday, 11 March 2011 at 12:03, Lee Packham wrote:
>
> I don't think I have permission to edit the page but...
>
> You need binutils as well and possibly dlcompat. I haven't done this
> stuff since doing gentoo stage 1 stuff!
>
> Cheers,
> Lee
>
> On 11 March 2011 11:18, Mike McQuaid <mike@mikemcquaid.com> wrote:
>
> On 11 March 2011 10:27, Max Howell <max@methylblue.com> wrote:
>
> Please add more information to this, if you have it.
> https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/wiki/Bootstrapping-CC
> Basically we do need to do *something*.
> I'm not 100% convinced Lion will come with the unix CC toolchain like some
> insist. And even if that is true, we should have an option for people who
> don't upgrade straight away.
>
> What we should just do to be most Homebrew-like is to build the
> open-sourced versions of GCC/LLVM/other tools that Apple provide and
> try to recreate their setup as closely as possible. Copying Apple also
> encourages upstream to try and make their software work with the
> default OS X developer tools, something that is good for all
> developers using OS X.
>
> I'd suggest we then use the bottle support I implemented to produce a
> binary package which we bootstrap using the real Xcode 4 and then
> instruct users to install it along with Git in our setup instructions.
>
> I've very, very against just pointing our users at a torrent. Call me
> a prude but I'm not willing to work on anything of questionable
> legality, particularly when it's tied so closely to my career.
>
> --
> Mike McQuaid
> http://mikemcquaid.com
>
>
>
> --
> Kind Regards,
>
> Lee Packham MBCS
> http://leenux.o rg.uk/
>
>
I like his idea on that page... tar gz the header files from the SDK. Awesome idea - and tbh, I don't see how that can be against fair usage/copyright. It's "ok" to reverse something to make it compatible with something else - it's why the iPhone jailbreaking has a legal exception under the DMCA. I say, build toolchain, grab headers from the SDK and show others how to do that. *shrug* On 11 March 2011 15:13, Dreamcat4 <dreamcat4@gmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps its worthwhile for you guys to look into this: > > http://www.sandroid.org/imcross/ > > As a way for building your os-x binaries on a linux machine. If you > can build on linux, that then opens up Launchpad.net as your build > farm. Since homebrew are an OSS project... a big part of the culture > at launchpad.net is to be pretty open in terms of broadly welcoming > any kinds of OSS projects. > > If you arent tempted by Canoical's servers, then cross-compiling on > linux still lends a pretty significant advantage in terms of other > options in regards to cheap (cloud-based) building, automation, > distribution. Wheras building on OS-x based servers is always going to > be more expensive (as its Apple hardware). Theres not a lot you can > really do to change that aspect. So thats the primary reason why I > think you should give cross compiling some serious consideration in > regards to the problems laid out here. > > Of course the cost associated with such a strategy is actually the > technical challenge and not a financial one. However if you're > restricting yourself to {llvm/CC/GCC} only, then you've just chosen > probably the only softwares which have always been cross-compiled ever > since their inception. So you may already be in luck in terms of > getting access to the necessary knowledge / expertise to do this. > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Max Howell <max@methylblue.com> wrote: >> Odd, I haven't restricted access and a brief parse of settings and that >> suggests any github user should have access. >> >> On Friday, 11 March 2011 at 12:03, Lee Packham wrote: >> >> I don't think I have permission to edit the page but... >> >> You need binutils as well and possibly dlcompat. I haven't done this >> stuff since doing gentoo stage 1 stuff! >> >> Cheers, >> Lee >> >> On 11 March 2011 11:18, Mike McQuaid <mike@mikemcquaid.com> wrote: >> >> On 11 March 2011 10:27, Max Howell <max@methylblue.com> wrote: >> >> Please add more information to this, if you have it. >> https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/wiki/Bootstrapping-CC >> Basically we do need to do *something*. >> I'm not 100% convinced Lion will come with the unix CC toolchain like some >> insist. And even if that is true, we should have an option for people who >> don't upgrade straight away. >> >> What we should just do to be most Homebrew-like is to build the >> open-sourced versions of GCC/LLVM/other tools that Apple provide and >> try to recreate their setup as closely as possible. Copying Apple also >> encourages upstream to try and make their software work with the >> default OS X developer tools, something that is good for all >> developers using OS X. >> >> I'd suggest we then use the bottle support I implemented to produce a >> binary package which we bootstrap using the real Xcode 4 and then >> instruct users to install it along with Git in our setup instructions. >> >> I've very, very against just pointing our users at a torrent. Call me >> a prude but I'm not willing to work on anything of questionable >> legality, particularly when it's tied so closely to my career. >> >> -- >> Mike McQuaid >> http://mikemcquaid.com >> >> >> >> -- >> Kind Regards, >> >> Lee Packham MBCS >> http://leenux.o rg.uk/ >> >> > -- Kind Regards, Lee Packham MBCS http://leenux.org.uk/