As long as I understand you have no problem with foo-devel, only with foo itself and problem is you want two different packages. one for the target system, one for cross compiling. All the files in those two packages are same, just should be installed into different directories. Is it correct? Assuming that yes, I can suggest following: 1. Compile you software. 2. Use spec file1 with only %install stage to create package for target 3. Use spec file 2 with different %install that will create package for cross-compiling This solution will avoid compiling same files twice. Valery. ----- Original Message ----- > From: "david.hagood@xxxxxxxxx" <david.hagood@xxxxxxxxx> > To: rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:01 PM > Subject: RPM and cross-compiling? > > I am working on an embedded system that uses RPM to manage its setup. All > the work is cross-compilation; no compiles are done within the target > environment. > > Developers have a sys-root image, plus a full set of cross-compilation > tools (gcc, binutils, etc.). > > What I would like to do is to be able to build packages both for the > target and for the developer's machine - let me give you an example: > > Let's say I am building a package that provides libfoo, plus the > development packages. Ideally, I want to create the following set of RPMs: > For the target system: > foo.rpm - installs libfoo.so and any needed runtime on the target, into > /opt/<company name>/lib/ > For the developer's host system: > foo_<arch>.rpm - installs libfoo.so for the target into the target's > sysroot (/opt/<company name>/tools/<arch>/sys-root/lib) > foo_<arch>_devel.rpm - installs the headers, linker stubs, man pages, etc > for libfoo. This might be into the sysroot, or somewhere else (I'm open to > suggestions of best practices). > > Now, I've thought about just making foo.rpm relocatable, and installing it > with the --prefix command, but I see a couple of issues there: > 1) The RPM's arch won't match the developer's machine. > 2) If the developer forgets that --prefix, badness could ensue. > > Now, I could have 2 spec files: one that builds for the host system, and > one that builds for the target, but it seems to me that is wasted motion: > we are compiling the same set of files, with (hopefully) the same set of > options and compilers twice. > > Is there an easy way to handle this sort of cross-development? > > _______________________________________________ > Rpm-list mailing list > Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list > _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
