Jochen, On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 16:21 +0200, Jochen Roth wrote: > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> Our suggestion would be to build spu-binutils from the same source as > >> the system gcc for ppc is build. > > Theoretically, this would be one possibility, however, practice tells > > this doesn't work, because there always will be situations when you will > > want to patch/apply hacks to your cross-binutils, > > Yes, we need a separate spu-binutils package for the assembly anyway. > And then we can build the spu-binutils from the same source tree as the > systems binutils package. As you know I have been following an alternative method of delivering an spu-binutils package; one of creating a package outside the existing binutils.spec file. After experimentation I'm now convinced that your approach is correct. It is necessary to add a spu-binutils package to the binutils.spec, and similarly an spu-binutils package to the gcc43.spec. This ensures that binutils and spu-binutils share the same .po files and that they are always at some synchronised correct point release etc... It would be far too easy to fall out of sync with binutils if the package was a separate .spec file. >From my reading of the matter you and I would both like to see spu-binutils and spu-gcc pushed into Fedora. I think both of us are in the dark about how Fedora would like its cross-compilers packaged and installed. Is there a policy on this? Or could someone who has experience with Fedora compiler packaging suggest how they would like to see the packaging done. -- Aidan Delaney -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
