Hello, On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Paul Mundt <lethal@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Let's look at the rationale presented so far in this thread: > > 1 - Being able to build the kernel natively on a constrained > target is useful, regardless of whether it is being used for > regression/stress testing or for headers installation or whatever > else. > > 2 - Cross-compiling perl is hard. > > 3 - Some oddly constrained target distributions manage to ship > with an entire toolchain yet fail to provide any implementation > of perl. > > 4 - It wasn't required before. > > If there is anything I missed, feel free to add it to the list. It was > difficult to extract even those 4 from the ranting. > 2 is not hard. 5. Tool *version* dependency is hard to get right. When cross-building 30 software packages all requiring native perl, we probably need to build a few versions of perl (native), one for each set of packages. Regards, -- Leon -- 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
