Clark Williams wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Manas Saksena wrote:
> Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 07:10:26PM -0700, Manas Saksena wrote:
>>
>> > Now that we have a substantial chunk of the packages built for ARM,
>> > I think it would be interesting to see if we can build a
>> cross-compiler
>> > that is aligned with the native toolchain. And, at this stage, we
dont
>> > need to worry about bootstrapping gcc since we already have a glibc
>> > available.
>> >
>> > I think it would be useful to bundle a cross-compiler/debugger
>> toolchain
>> > with the release even if all the other packages are built
natively. As
>> > much of the development tends to be with the kernel and the
>> > applications, the cross-compiler is virtually a necessity for those.
>> >
>> > Is anyone interested in working on that?
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply -- see:
>>
>>
>>
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-June/msg02597.html
>>
>>
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-June/msg02739.html
>>
>> Binary i386 -> ARM packages are here:
>>
>> http://www.wantstofly.org/~buytenh/cross/
>>
>
> I was wondering if it would be possible to package this up in a way that
> would be easy to install.
>
> For e.g., a cross-toolchain package, which requires all the other
> packages -- gcc, binutils, etc. (not sure how to deal with glibc in that
> context). So, you can just do:
>
> yum install cross-toolchain-arm
>
> and, you have everything you need.
>
Manas,
We have been experimenting with packaging our GNUPro tools as one big
RPM. We're
currently holding the One-Big-RPM vs. Multiple-Not-So-Big-RPMS debate,
but we
actually have built a cross toolchain and packaged it as an RPM, since
you can do
that in an SRPM; if you have multiple SRPMS you have to have some
synchronization
logic for the bootstrapping and we don't have that currently.
What I had in mind was to have a "meta-package" that simply requires
gcc, binutils, etc. So, a yum install of the "meta-package" would give
you the full toolchain.
If you punt on bootstrapping (i.e., treat it as a separate problem),
then it should not be that hard to maintain it. What I was hoping for
was that we could use the same binutils, gcc, glibc, gdb SRPMs to build
in both a cross-build and a native build environment, and that way you
can make also ensure that there is no mismatch between a cross-toolchain
and a native toolchain.
It's not aligned with the Fedora toolchain, but it's close. It's
currently one
package with gcc-4.2.1, binutils-2.17 and glibc-2.6. I'm also pretty
sure it's never
been built using a mock chroot, so getting all this going in koji is
going to be an
"interesting" exercise. But I'm willing to give it a shot. Well, me and
Brendan that
is :)
You interested?
Sure -- definitely worth a try. I think it would be a good idea to
do the experimentation on cross-toolchain/development stuff until
we reach some agreement on what makes most sense. So, if you can
move some of the debate on one-big-rpm vs multiple-rpms out here,
then that would be most welcome as well.
Regards,
Manas
