Andy Green wrote:
Hans de Goede wrote:
You don't get my objectino, I'm crossing from Fedora but not too Fedora,
therefore what is in Fedora's specfile is completely irrelevant. Extreme
example, the sdcc cross-compiler already in Fedora. This crosses from
Fedora to 8051 (and other) microcontrollers. It uses its own assembler
and is its own C-compiler, binutils and gcc are not used at all (except
for building the asm / compiler themselves, duh). Should the sdcc
specfile be a pathc on top of gcc's specfile, a patch effectively
replacing 100% of it, just because its a c-compiler too?
Should Fedora packages have to deal with it at all "just because its a
c-compiler too?" I think the scenario of striving to be able to build
glibc for 8051 on sdcc needs to be triaged into a different discussion.
I'm not talking about building glibc for 8051 (that would be kinda hard as an
average 8051 comes with 256 bytes of ram, and no I didn't forget an K or M there).
What I'm saying that using the same spec for sdcc and gcc makes no sense, iow
that when crossing to something not fedora using Fedora's specs as a base makes
no sense, because for example we might be dealing with a different compiler
(version).
Please read my reply to David Woodhouse.
What seems to be in the world of the possible is to retrofit the Fedora
- Fedora cross case into what exists already. The benefits that fall
out of that in terms of regularizing upstreams for cross and making
definitive cross recipes (for gcc anyway!) will only help everyone else.
Agreed, all that I'm saying is that the one spec file (with or without
overlays) might be a good idea for Fedora-Fedora crosses, but is not for
Fedora-Foo crosses.
Regards,
Hans
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
