David Woodhouse wrote:
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"
Any particular reason for the binutils in binutils_target? Something
like target_triplet could be shared across multiple packages (gcc, gdb).
Also, putting some form of Fedora in the name is great, but it should
be in some way versioned like i686-fedora5-linux or even i686-fc5-linux.
This is a little more specific and will scale better if cross compiler
interest blossoms.
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.
This seems like a pretty small divergence. Instead of target_triplet
use target_triplets, use a for loop and you're scarcely any further from
the original spec file. That said, three downsides come to mind:
1. The build will become increasingly slow as targets are added.
2. A build failure of one target may prevent any target RPMs from being
produced (optional).
3. If people want to take the idea and run with it for other targets, a
single SRPM means less flexible maintainership.
The question that's been gnawing on my mind since your original posting
is: Where does the sys-root come from? Clearly for the Fedora targets,
there exist RPMs that contain the needed files from the existing build
process. These need to be available when generating the crosses. Your
binutils.spec (nice) assumes there is an installation under
"/usr/%{binutils_target}". Whether or not this is the right place, it'd
be good for there to be a dependency that ensures this exists.
My current thought is that there be a wrapper spec file that takes in
the target's RPMs, puts them in a standardized directory
"/usr/share/sys-roots/%{target_triplet}" (imperfect location of the
day), then makes a noarch RPM out of the contents. Is this possible in
the build system? How do we accommodate the GPL here? Assuming this is
a viable option, binutils (gcc, etc) could simply require this package
prior to building. Having distinct sys-root packages also accommodates
other (non-Fedora targeted) systems for which some interest has been shown.
It would be great if Fedora could be cross compiled using any host
system to produce binaries for any target system, be it a supported and
rare host (s390, ia64) or an entirely new target (arm, mips*).
-Brendan (blc@xxxxxxxxxx)
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
