-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Manas Saksena wrote: > DJ Delorie wrote: >> >> > If you punt on bootstrapping >> >> Keep in mind that our group specializes in cross compiling, so >> bootstrapping is not something we usually punt ;-) > > What I meant was that you dont have to use the same SRPMs to do > the initial bootstrap. That makes your SRPMs a bit-cleaner and > they dont have to be cluttered with "bootstrap" special case. > > And, once you have built your initial toolchain, you can use > that to bootstrap subsequent builds. Only occasionally, you > have to and do a full bootstrap all over again. > > Regards, > Manas > I see a difference in philosophy developing already :) In general we bootstrap all the time, since we're trying to ensure that all the pieces work together. Either that or we're incredibly pedantic. Probably both... The advantage of bootstrapping every time is that you know all the parts were built with the same set of assumptions. It's not nearly as bad as bootstrapping a native, since you don't have the stageN steps to manage. For my part, I see much more potential for configuration problems with trying to mix-n-match the set of arm-linux-gcc, arm-linux-binutils, arm-linux-glibc and potentially arm-linux-gdb packages, than just bootstrapping everything into one arm-linux-crosstools package. To be fair, I suppose your counter is that my approach would make it harder to track the fedora tools. Hmmmm, I'll have to think about that. Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGnTs0Hyuj/+TTEp0RAt7dAJ9qENu7P2uLhkvqMWMbPGED6rcZZQCgqoTU OII3hTjbvnYKRj0c7ihyoYc= =Jj8H -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
