Hans de Goede wrote: > 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). We agree on it, but I think accepting that it makes no sense then it is out of scope and just confusing the issue with a need that can't be met. > Please read my reply to David Woodhouse. Yep I understood it. I also build for 8051 derivatives and so on, but I don't expect Fedora packaging to give me any help for what to build down there: it doesn't seem reasonable. ARM9 that can handle the kernel and so on -- and gcc -- is a different matter. >> 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. Sure. But nothing Fedora can do can help with Fedora-Foo crosses where Foo is a wildcard and your plan is to replace their spec file anyway. What it can do something about is the Fedora-Fedora cross case, and specfile patching would be a neat solution. -Andy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
