On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 12:33 +0200, Yaakov Nemoy wrote: > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 05:21:20PM +0200, Erik van Pienbroek wrote: > >> Do you have a list of the current technical issues you're coping with? > >> Maybe I can help. > > > > Yes, I did ... and in fact I was looking for it earlier today, but > > couldn't find it. So let's make a list again: > > > > (1) At the moment rpm runs programs like 'strip' on the Windows > > libraries, which actually corrupts them. To avoid that we have hacked > > the __os_install_post RPM variable so it basically doesn't do > > anything. > > > > However a better solution would be to run the correct strip binary > > depending on the type of binary/library (ie. ordinary strip or > > i686-pc-mingw32-strip as appropriate). > > > > If you have a look at this file (not written by me) and search down > > for __os_install_post, you'll see one working but rather ugly solution > > to this: > > > > http://www.annexia.org/tmp/i686-pc-mingw32-binutils.spec > > > > Is it possible to do any better? Perhaps by patching RPM itself? > > Or just modifying a) the macro or b) the strip binary itself in the > environment you compile the packages in. > > Namely > a) there is a macro __strip that you can try replacing with your own value. This will not help - RPM presumes to have only one single strip to be applied everywhere. Cross-toolchain packages contain different kinds of binary formats, with each of which requiring different tools. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
