https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1350884 --- Comment #46 from Brandon Nielsen <nielsenb@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Andy Mender from comment #45) > I'm wondering whether perhaps it's not possible to split this into multiple > SPEC files and tackle each component separately? For instance, to do > msp430-elf-binutils or msp430-elf-gdb first. For instance, here the packager > focused on gdb alone: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1859627 The source used for the specfile in this review is _not_ the vanilla GCC / GDB / binutils upstream, it is a bespoke version done by Mitto Systems for TI and ships GCC / GDB / binutils all in one tarball. A lot of the work has been upstreamed, but there are still differences. I could redo the work of comment #4 to document what still differs, but ultimately I think most developers would prefer using something as close as possible to what TI provides, which is why I'm not okay with the current state of the specfile, the resulting binaries would not work with Makefiles targeting the TI provided blobs (which is probably >99% of them). As mentioned above, I've been short on time to investigate this behavior. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
