On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 02:22:40PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Looking at > > Information for RPM mingw64-zlib-1.2.13-2.fc38.noarch.rpm > <https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=33118048> > > sysroot paths look like this: > > /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/zlib1.dll > /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/zconf.h > /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/zlib.h > /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libz.dll.a > /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/zlib.pc > > Is the /mingw/ part of the sysroot path, or is it within the sysroot? > Would I use --sysroot=/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root or > --sysroot=/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw to build against the > sysroot? > > I assumed the latter, but now I wonder if /mingw in the sysroot is the > analogue of /usr in GNU/Linux sysroots. FWIW: $ x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -print-sysroot /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root which would indicate that you are correct that /mingw is somehow "inside" the sysroot. However I have no idea about what the correct sysroot should be, just that what we have now works and changing it would be a massive PITA so I wouldn't want us to do it without very good reasons. Rich. > Eventually, we want to produce some GNU/Linux sysroots. I picked > > /usr/%{_arch}-redhat-linux/sys-root/fc%{fedora} > > or (depending on the operating system) > > /usr/%{_arch}-redhat-linux/sys-root/el%{rhel} > > or (as the fallback) > > /usr/%{_arch}-redhat-linux/sys-root/root > > and we have /usr inside the sysroot, e.g. <stdio.h> is > > /usr/x86_64-redhat-linux/sys-root/fc35/usr/include/stdio.h > > in a Fedora 35 sysroot on x86-64 (although the Fedora 35 update with > this never actually went out). We essentially use the /mingw/ part as > an OS ABI version indicator, to make the different versions > co-installable. > > I want to pick this up again and would like to solicit comments if that > OS ABI variant thing is the right approach, or if we should drop it. > Sysroot packages are by nature relocatable, and do not have to be > installed in /, so it's perhaps not a great loss if their version > variants are not co-installable. > > We need something like this before we can drop i686 on ELN; it's only > way to enable -m32 in GCC in a sustainable fashion. But we don't need > OS ABI variants for that. > > Thanks, > Florian -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch http://libguestfs.org/virt-builder.1.html _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
