On Sun, 2006-07-23 at 08:15 -0400, David Woodhouse wrote:
> How much interest would there be in getting a bunch of cross-compilers
> into Extras?
>
> Stuff like crosstool makes it relatively simple, but it's still slow --
Crosstool doesn't support newlib based targets.
> I'd really like to be able to easily and quickly install cross-compiler
> packages for random architectures like ARM, MIPS, i386, etc.
These are still linux/glibc based variants.
> I'd like to ship a multi-arch capable binutils like Debian's
> 'binutils-multi' and a set of cross-compilers -- preferably the same
> versions of each as the one in Core.
I am not a friend of this mult-targeted binutils. For a user, they are a
PITA, because each and every tiny arch-specific bug-fix touches all
arches and because RH's sources are not usable for other OSes.
> It'd be particularly nice if we could install native -devel packages
> into each toolchain's sysroot -- we could avoid having to rebuild glibc
> etc. for architectures which are in rawhide, for example. But that isn't
> imperative.
glibc .. you are talking about linux.
> Does anyone else care? Other than the full set of rawhide architectures,
> what others would we include? Alpha, SPARC{64,}, ARM, MIPS, SH I assume?
> Would anyone volunteer to maintain each of those toolchains? I wouldn't
> really feel happy doing it myself, since when it comes to GCC I would
> only ever be a package-monkey, and not a proper _maintainer_.
I have ca. 15 cross compiler toolchains at hand. ca. 9 RTEMS toolchains,
mingw, cygwin, different freebsds and solaris (Non distributable). I.e.
probably exactly those cases you don't have.
Ralf
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
