XFree86 build

[Bill Squire]

On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 12:00:38AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 02:55:25AM -0500, Jem Matzan wrote:
> > On Sat, 2004-01-31 at 02:48, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 01:35:47AM -0500, Jem Matzan wrote:
> > > > 	What's in your /etc/make.conf? I have CPUTYPE?=?x86_64 for the CPU
> > > > type,
> > > 
> > > That is so totally wrong, I don't know where the idea could have come
> > > from.  There is a single AMD64 implimentation at this time, so there are
> > > no choices (or things to tweak).  x86_64 is Linux's bastardized spelling
> > > of "AMD64".
> > 
> > Hey that's wonderful, but do you have a suggestion as to what the
> > CPUTYPE should be?
> 
> Yes, don't set it.

Here is a question for David or anybody:

CPUTYPE?=. is therefore correct? (or nothing at all?)

The two settings below have worked well for some time now. Is this wrong 
too?

CPUTYPE?= amd64
TARGET_ARCH?= amd64

Is there any chance of setting compatibility for "Linux's bastardized 
spelling" of 'amd64' at the top level? (In /etc/make.conf ?) This is still
one (if not the most) common trivial patch in the ports.

CXXFLAGS+= -fPIC -DPIC seems to always work. The Linux people say: "It's 
a workaround -- don't.

Placing -fPIC in CFLAGS= sometimes causes the compiler to bomb, while not
having it to make some some libs (in the right Makefile) will cause the 
linker to bomb with a very Linux like "x86_64_32" in the error message.

What gives? It certainly is "amd64", but "HAMMER" is still used to ID the
"amd64" in the kernel conf? Certainly I like what I have, but if there is 
one and only one "amd64", calling it by atleast three names looks like 
trouble.

Bill