On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 13:43 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Linus Walleij wrote: > > > > 2. As I understand it you employ the Fedora/x86 style of not using a > > cross-compiler to build these packages, but rather build them with ARM > > on ARM. I am aware of some RPM derivatives like those used by > > MontaVista, that employ a cross-compiler instead. What are your thought > > on these issues? Have you tested both solutions and come to the > > conclusion that the all-ARM-enclosed build system is the way to go? > > > > In my somewhat limited experience cross-compiling of software which is not > designed for that from day one is a big pain, let alone cross-compiling an > entire distro! Is there an existing, binary distributed target-distro? If yes, then using a sys-rooted cross-compiler in combination with prebuilt binaries is a fairly simple escape. This quite helpful when only wanting to occasionally build a couple of packages (or when not having permanent access to the target systems), while another sources supply most target binaries. I for one apply this for building target binaries for target OSes I don't use myself. > There are indeed some hacks around rpm to make the packahes > think they are being build nativly, but what I've seen these are very gross > hacks and still break often. Well, RH's rpm and redhat-rpm-config are grossly broken when it comes to cross-building rpms. Many things work once you kick redhat-rpm-config out :( > Native compiling definitively is the way to go, This is only applicable for sufficiently performing targets. Esp. for low end targets this is close to impossible. > an alternative might be > emulating the native system and building in the emulated system. With a few exceptions, in practice, this is rarely applicable, esp. when it comes to "less mainstream" targets. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
