On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:20:04 -0500 Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > John Summerfield (debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > > We're making process, but pardon me if I ask "why?" again. I can understand > > that someone might have chosen to implement that way, but is this choice > > necessary? Could binaries running on Intellish hardware not do the needed > > work? > > Becuase otherwise involves writing really grody code that uses elfutils > to parse out all the DT_NEEDEDs. We also run various things like ldconfig, > icon caching, fc-cache, im module listings, etc. in the root for the > install images. Exactly what I was going to say. It's just how our build system is implemented. I mean, you keep asking 'why' and that's the answer: because we built it this way. Sure, it's entirely possible to construct a build system that would let us crank out installation images for ppc on i386 (or any other arch pair we supported), but I, personally, don't see the value in that. Ultimately, we have to build on the target hardware *and* we have to test installations on the target hardware, so if we already have the target hardware, we might as well use it to generate the images during tree builds. -- David Cantrell <dcantrell@xxxxxxxxxx> Red Hat / Honolulu, HI
Attachment:
pgp3TeIy3XK62.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
