Hi Ricardo, Michael, Marcin, and Brendan, On Wed, 2011-11-30 at 21:16 -0200, Ricardo Salveti wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Michael Hope <michael.hope@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > We don't have a libc as there hasn't been the need. The cross > > compiler could either target the Fedora ARM port or the Linaro LEBs. > > I believe it could simply target the Fedora ARM port, but then don't > know if it'll be easily compatible with other rpm-based distros. This is a good opportunity to ensure that it is the case :) If there is diversity at the fundamental level sufficient to break compatibility between RPM distributions we have a lot more work to do on cross-distro compatibility (and I want RPM/non-RPM compatibility to be great also). We would certainly welcome data about how compatible we are today. > Well, guess making the Linaro native package available should help you > understanding if there's any need to do the switch. Even if not > entirely switching to the Linaro GCC, you could simply make the > package available for the people to try and help tracking and > comparing bugs and issues with the native distro GCC. That is reasonable, us switching to anything other than the official Fedora GCC is not a reasonable outcome for the Fedora ARM project :) In my mind, I enjoy that we have GCC maintainers working for Red Hat who maintain both our commercial and Fedora GCC packages. I welcome and support the work Linaro are doing, but I think it would not be to the greater benefit of our distribution to outsource the toolchain itself. > >> Once packages are in rpm format it's very straight-forward for anybody to > >> start using them, pulling updates, etc. > > > > I'd have to bring that up with management. We'll support you if you > > use it but producing and maintaining the packaging is an overhead. > > This is solved at our LEBs by enabling the packaging recipes at > Launchpad, that then merges the packaging souce with the Linaro GCC > trunk and push the package to be automatically built at our PPAs. If > you have some sort of a similar system, that could trigger new > packages and rebuilds once the Linaro GCC bzr tree gets updated, I > believe we can at least help setting up the environment and building > the first packages. We do have a capability to have personal packages and our build system can import sources from various places. Having said that, I do not believe a fully automated build based on polling your trees is going to work with the current technology. It would, though, be fairly low overhead to have a "package" in Fedora that is really just an RPM spec file and a clone of the Linaro sources you/we can pull into frequently. > To have proper maintenance and such would then be a quite overhead, > and would need an agreement with the management. I'm not convinced we need to have a "product" grade toolchain yet. What we could start with is just a period sync of the latest Linaro toolchain into a Fedora ARM package and see what the interest is in developing it. As to conference calls, I'm flexible on the timing myself. Thanks, Jon. _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
