David Cantrell wrote:
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.
Asking "Why?" is what scientists do, and I wanted to be one:-)
Recall that Doug appears not to have the hardware, and one of the
projects _I_ have on the back burner is a cross-build, and if I have
hardware it will be slow, emulated hardware. It's good to know the
impediments.
Thanks for your patience.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
