On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 07:10:20PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Sun, 2006-07-23 at 08:15 -0400, David Woodhouse wrote: > > How much interest would there be in getting a bunch of cross-compilers > > into Extras? > > Starting with binutils.... at http://david.woodhou.se/binutils.spec > there's a specfile based on the current Core package which lets you > build cross-binutils with for example > --define "binutils_target i686-fedora-linux" > > That approach lets us track the Core package directly, and I think is > sanest. What I'm not sure of, however, is how we actually deal with that > when building for Extras. Is there a simple way we can build it multiple > times with multiple definitions of %binutils_target, or would we have to > import it all into multiple directories in CVS with the requisite > one-line change and then build each one normally? > > Another possibility is that we could make a single SRPM spit out _all_ > the $ARCH-fedora-linux-binutils binary packages, building them all in a > loop. But that might involve diverging even more from the Core specfile, > which wouldn't be ideal. > > On the other hand, if we have to postprocess the Core specfile when we > export it from Core to Extras anyway, perhaps we could have a scripted > way of converting it to build multiple packages too? > > Suggestions on a postcard to... I like the one SRPM -> all binary packages idea. Any reason that *couldn't* be in Core? -- Matt Domsch Software Architect Dell Linux Solutions linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux Linux on Dell mailing lists @ http://lists.us.dell.com -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
