Warren Togami wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795 > > It appears that a few folks want sdcc, but do the packaging standards > for cross compilers and the concern about names being dropped into > /usr/bin should be solved first? > 1) The cross compile stuff being discussed so far was about a cross compiling binutils + gcc + libs, sdcc is a whole different compiler, which comes with its own libc (I think) etc. packaging sdcc sure would be interesting, and could/should try to follow the guidelines being developed for cross-gcc where possible 2) About the cross compiling gcc guidelines I've been having both on and off-list discussions on this topic with Ralf Corsepius, mostly we agree on what I proposed in my initial mail about this from this week: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2007-February/msg00329.html Besides my post we also have: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/CrossCompilers?highlight=%28Packaging%29 Which was created by Tibbs over a year ago in response to a package review request for cross-compile stuff by Ralf. This is mostly compatible with my proposal, but less complete. The only difference is that both Ralf and I don't like the proposed prefixing of cross- in front of the packages, if one installs arm-linux-gcc on a x86_64, its obvious that its a cross compiler and the names will get long enough with just prefixing the canonical target. Other then from Ralf I have had 0 replies. Ralf had the same experience when submitting 2 packages as a first try for review, that was over a year ago and noone has responded, except for Tibbs setting up the wiki page, which also has bitrotted since then.since Ralf and I seem to be the only ones seriously enough interested in this to actually invest time, I suggest that we (Ralf and I) form a cross-compile / embedded SIG and work out a set of guidelines for cross stuff within this SIG, much like the Games SIG has some additional Guidelines for games. Since Ralf and I agree for 99.9% on my proposal, this really is almost done. The only thing which I want discussed in a wider audience / need more input in is the SRPM issue, quoting from my original mail: "The SRPMS for all these packages will most of the time contain the exact same tarbals as the native binutils / gcc / libs Possible solutions: a) Live with the extra diskspace / bandwidth cost this induces upon our mirrors b) *** Warning dirty hack *** Test for the existence of the tarbal in RPM_SOURCE_DIR in %prep and if it isn't there bail with a message howto get the tarbal from the srpms for the native packages. We can use the sources file and the look-aside cache to make the test for the tarbal succeed on the buildsys. Advantages: saves tons of diskspace. Disadvantage: slight inconvienience for people trying to rebuild the srpm's manually. Large inconvienience for people doing automated rebuilds (aurora for example) I honestly don't know what todo here. I kinda like solution b), except for the pain it causes to aurora and possible others." So what do you think / any advice on the SRPM issue Warren? Regards, Hans -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
