David Woodhouse wrote:
We might want to put libgcc into a separate package for the
cross-toolchain, unless we can _fake_ the presence of glibc. We might
only really need a dummy DSO to link libgcc against; it doesn't actually
have to be glibc -- it only needs about 10 symbols to be present iirc.
Would you trust a gcc built against a fake glibc? I wouldn't. When
bootstrapping a glibc targeted cross compiler, my method is:
1. Create minimal sys-root with glibc-kernheaders (Haven't done this
since the package change) plus a few fake headers that glibc would
normally provide.
2. Create target-gcc with step 1 headers.
3. Create target-glibc sys-root with step 2.
4. Create final target-gcc with step 3.
5. Create final target-glibc with step 4.
Steps 1-3 are throw-away bits. Placing cross compilers in Fedora does
not require all this because the build system does not need to solve the
chicken&egg problem. The main problem to be solved is The Right Way
(tm) to leverage those already-generated files that a sys-root is
composed of.
Suggestions:
1. Repackage binary rpms as noarch rpms under a sys-root tree.
2. Modify rpm such that RPMs of different architectures can be installed
in a sys-root tree.
3. Modify Fedora so that all headers and libraries are by default in a
sys-root.
4. Modify something (rpm? all packages?) such that an optional sys-root
package is emitted along with devel packages. Sort of like debuginfo.
...
-Brendan (blc@xxxxxxxxxx)
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
