Andy Green wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 00:25 -0600, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
David Woodhouse wrote:
Do we _actually_ need to build parts of glibc? Could we not get away
with a fake DSO which just provides the few symbols libgcc uses?
[snip]
Will follow up on this part tomorrow. I disfavor faking it, as it were.
Binutils at least should be relatively easy. Here's a patch against
binutils/F-7 which lets me:
make DIST_DEFINES='--define "binutils_target i686-linux-gnu"' ppc
Even for this we have build system questions... how best to build it for
each target architecture we want?
Generally, I think Hans and the rest at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Embedded have the right idea here.
Prefixing the target name to the package is a good plan for most
crosses. More fully, I see 3 options:
1. One srpm to rule them all. This seems like a bad idea as it doesn't
scale.
Right, it doesn't. You'd end up with a monsterous spec cluttered with
cases and many (unused) patches, because different vendors apply
different patch sets.
Yet if you can put the clutter issue aside, this is definitely the Holy
Grail. The spec file is the single point at which the uncontrolled
variance of the raw tarballs are smoothed into a normalized Fedora package.
Having multiple specs is going to lead to duplication of information and
loss of coherence when changes are made.
How about... a single Holy Spec, exactly what Fedora has right now, but
which gets dynamically pre-patched if there is stuff needed for cross on
a particular package that can't be hidden in the rpmmacros? The set of
arch spec patches lives in the SRPM like the other patches. This:
- keeps a single Fedora basic spec
- allows non-cross folks to totally ignore the existence of cross if
they like
- allows maintainability
- visibility of what is done for per-arch cross
One single spec might be an idea for Fedora-Fedora cross packages, but it is
not the answer for Fedora-Other (Embedded) OS target.
For example the gp2x sdk uses binutils 2.16.1 and glibc 2.3.5, so I don't think
stuffing this into the main Fedora binutils and glibc specs is a good idea.
Regards,
Hans
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
