I think some cross compilers would be a good idea. I already use arm
regularly and will shortly have a need for nesC and some AVR cross
tools. If they are candidates for extras, I don't know.
I do now there was some discuss, which remains unresolved, as to the
naming convention to use for cross tool chain packages.
Michael
David Woodhouse wrote:
How much interest would there be in getting a bunch of cross-compilers
into Extras?
Stuff like crosstool makes it relatively simple, but it's still slow --
I'd really like to be able to easily and quickly install cross-compiler
packages for random architectures like ARM, MIPS, i386, etc.
I'd like to ship a multi-arch capable binutils like Debian's
'binutils-multi' and a set of cross-compilers -- preferably the same
versions of each as the one in Core.
It'd be particularly nice if we could install native -devel packages
into each toolchain's sysroot -- we could avoid having to rebuild glibc
etc. for architectures which are in rawhide, for example. But that isn't
imperative.
Does anyone else care? Other than the full set of rawhide architectures,
what others would we include? Alpha, SPARC{64,}, ARM, MIPS, SH I assume?
Would anyone volunteer to maintain each of those toolchains? I wouldn't
really feel happy doing it myself, since when it comes to GCC I would
only ever be a package-monkey, and not a proper _maintainer_.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
