Re: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 11:28 -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> Guys:
> 
> > If you opt to cross-compile, having to deal with those
> > sorts of things is the price you pay.
> 
> 
> If the build system derives from autoconf, then a hacked-up config.cache (or
> equivalent command-line args) often solves problems for me.  Just give the cache
> the answers that it would otherwise have to get by running code on the target
> machine.
> 
> That's how emdebian is doing a bunch of their stuff, and I have to admit that it
> works pretty darned well.  It's also handy for configuration management, since
> the cache file itself is plaintext and therefore svn/git/bzr/cvs/...-friendly.

Yeah, I was building Red Hat Linux packages for sh3 many years ago,
using tricks like that. But there was always _something_ else going
wrong, however much you hacked around it. And a lot of it would only
turn up at runtime, not build time. I would never consider shipping a
product with a large number of userspace packages cross-compiled.

For minimal file systems with a select handful of tools which can be
tested exhaustively, it's not so bad. But for any 'full-featured'
userspace, I think cross-compilation is completely insane.

-- 
dwmw2

--
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

[Index of Archives]     [Gstreamer Embedded]     [Linux MMC Devel]     [U-Boot V2]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux