On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 08:36 +0100, A.J.Delaney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > 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. > >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? Nope, there isn't. All I can say, I for one don't see any reason for treating cross-toolchain packages any different from any other packages. Besides of them facing the bugs in rpm/redhat-rpm-config which happen to render packaging cross-toolchains difficult, and GCC's installation directory conventions which happen to clash with the FHS, they are ordinary applications. > Or could someone who has > experience with Fedora compiler packaging suggest how they would like to > see the packaging done. Well, I happen package cross toolchains for Fedora for quite some time[1]. Hans's avr packages inherited some aspects from these during their package review. Ralf [1] cf. ftp://ftp.rtems.org/pub/rtems/linux -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
