On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 2:26 AM, fedora_arm <fedora_arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? None I'm aware of, there's been a number of attempts for ARMv6 to support original RPi/Pi Zero but even they're mostly dead. >> 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. I've been involved in Fedora ARM for over 7 years, lead the build effort since F-14 and we've never cross compiled except pre rpm phase when boot strapping very core central bits of booting Linux for a new arch IE armhfp or aarch64. >>> - 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. Well a SRPM is essentially noarch or agnostic so it doesn't matter what arch you create it on it's consumable across all arches hence I still don't understand what the question is. >> 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 as accelerated VMs using kvm. Not all aarch64 hardware supports that. >> 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? Correct. _______________________________________________ arm mailing list -- arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to arm-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
