On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:50 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 08:23 -0700, Tim Bird wrote: >> Rob Landley wrote: >> > However, having one or more full-time engineers devoted to debugging >> > cross-compile issues is quite a high price to pay too. Moore's law really >> > doesn't help that one. >> > >> > I'm not saying either solution is perfect, I'm just saying the "build under >> > emulation" approach is a viable alternative that gets more attractive as time >> > passes, both because of ongoing development on emulators and because of >> > Moore's law on the hardware. >> >> I agree with much that you have said, Rob, and I understand the argument >> for getting the most gain from the least resources, but I have a philosophical >> problem with working around the cross-compilation problems instead of fixing >> them in the upstream packages (or in the autoconf system itself). >> >> Once someone fixes the cross-compilation issues for a package, they usually >> stay fixed, if the fixes are mainlined. > > I don't think that's true, unfortunately. Autoconf makes it _easy_ to do > the wrong thing, and people will often introduce new problems. > > If we just made people write portable code and proper Makefiles, it > would be less of an issue :) people cant even write proper *native* makefiles. mtd-utils for example ;). -mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
