On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 17:42 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 16:30 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 11:07 -0400, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > > > David Woodhouse wrote: > > > > How about just building binutils, then the compiler, then some libraries? > > > > > > That would be great if it's possible. How is this going to work with > > > only the headers supplied in binutils and gcc? > > > > I believe it ought to go something like > > > > binutils < gcc < glibc < libgcc Forgot to mention: - libgcc is part of GCC. - The dependency GCC and glibc (and the kernel-headers) is circular. Splitting out libgcc from GCC IMO is an attempt to break this circular dependency from the wrong end. > > We might want to put libgcc into a separate package for the > > cross-toolchain, unless we can _fake_ the presence of glibc. > As mentioned a dozen of times before: Simply repackage the glibc binary > rpms into a sys-rooted environment (for those GCC's supporting it - > Older versions don't). Using the binary glibc, breaks this dependencies into the same linear, incremental dependency chain as being used for native compilation and re-uses the identical target library binaries as being used natively. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
