On 07/15/2017 06:17 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: > Fedora hasn't supported anything less than ARMv7 (armhfp) since Fedora 18. Not what I was hoping. But lack of an armel build isn't a long term issue. Do any contemporary Fedora ARM derivatives exist which may still maintain armel build infrastructure? > No, we don't support cross compiling anything except the kernel. > There's lots of complexity in dealing with cross compiling and there's > code that's run during the builds that needs to run on the actual > architecture that's not actually compiling. My information admittedly is dated. When i was involved a number of years ago, effort was being expended to support Fedora SRPM cross build by Marvell and others IIRC. Appears moot now. >> - Beyond cross builds infrastructure support is the question of what degree SRPMs >> themselves support cross platform builds. This being an embedded platform, runtime >> needs are minimal (no graphics, no heavy scripting languages, applications, etc.. >> So we're not faced with building a conventional workstation class RPM userland content. > I don't understand what you mean by that statement/question. I was assuming cross build of SRPMs may still be supported but probably wasn't as complete as the case of a native build. That wouldn't likely have been an issue for this embedded use case and the core userland runtime is most of what is required. Again moot. > The Fedora infrastructure runs 32 bit VMs as builders running on 64 > bit hardware. 64-bit ARM or x86_64 host hardware? If ARM is that leveraging kvm to accelerate the 32-bit VM? > aarch64 is quite a bit different to ARMv7 in terms of instructions so > we don't support a multilib style env like x86_64/i686 does. So the model is a strict self-hosted native build where the host's distro and toolchain is exactly that of the target, correct? Thanks, -john _______________________________________________ arm mailing list -- arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to arm-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
