Hans de Goede wrote: > 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. Maybe I didn't make my actual point clear in that (or maybe I don't get your objection)... the idea is you maintain a patch against the existing Fedora spec file for any package and arch that needs meddling with. So there is one spec file same as right now - unchanged - but you have additional per-arch pre-patches in the SRPM as well for cross cases that need them. Non-cross people who don't go look at the patches aren't even aware anything has changed let alone see things "stuffed" or "cluttered". -Andy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
