Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I prefer using <target>-gcc-*.i386.rpm
Likewise.
If sys-rooting such a toolchain, it's toolchain's target-libs could be packaged into a <target>-sys-root-*.noarch.rpm
To add a little granularity to the discussion, I'm going to point out that there are (at least) two camps of people who want cross compilers in Fedora:
1) Those who want cross compilers for nifty gadgets, generally not running Linux at all. Having a <target>-sys-root-*.noarch.rpm such as Ralf suggests makes sense in this context.
2) Those who want cross compilers that target other linux architectures such as arm, ppc, s390, etc. Having a <target>-sys-root-*.noarch.rpm does not make sense in this context. That is because you want to work with and make packages for your target arch rather than nebulous binary blobs.
I'm particularly interested in #2, but believe Fedora can accommodate both. It's also a logical line along which to split package maintainership duties since the tools in question are used for such very different purposes.
What I am doing is aiming at cross-building target-binaries, not target packages/rpms.
Yep. Ok, I concede your noarch binary blob answer for non-linux targets. -- Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc@xxxxxxxxxx -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
