Re: Cross-compilers.

[Philip Balister <philip@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Once again, several other open source projects have solved this problem. 
The problem is not the lack of cross building systems, rather than there 
are so many. Why does Fedora need to reinvent the wheel?

Philip

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 17:42 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 16:30 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 11:07 -0400, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> > >
> > > > David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > How about just building binutils, then the compiler, then some libraries?
> > > >
> > > > That would be great if it's possible.  How is this going to work with 
> > > > only the headers supplied in binutils and gcc? 
> > >
> > > I believe it ought to go something like
> > >
> > > binutils < gcc < glibc < libgcc
>
> Forgot to mention:
> - libgcc is part of GCC.
> - The dependency GCC and glibc (and the kernel-headers) is circular.
>
> Splitting out libgcc from GCC IMO is an attempt to break this circular
> dependency from the wrong end.
>
>
> > > We might want to put libgcc into a separate package for the
> > > cross-toolchain, unless we can _fake_ the presence of glibc.
> >
> > As mentioned a dozen of times before: Simply repackage the glibc binary
> > rpms into a sys-rooted environment (for those GCC's supporting it -
> > Older versions don't).
>
>
> Using the binary glibc, breaks this dependencies into the same linear,
> incremental dependency chain as being used for native compilation and
> re-uses the identical target library binaries as being used natively.
>
> Ralf

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list