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

Re: Cross-compilers.



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David Woodhouse wrote:
> How much interest would there be in getting a bunch of cross-compilers
> into Extras?
>
> Stuff like crosstool makes it relatively simple, but it's still slow --
> I'd really like to be able to easily and quickly install cross-compiler
> packages for random architectures like ARM, MIPS, i386, etc.
>
> I'd like to ship a multi-arch capable binutils like Debian's
> 'binutils-multi' and a set of cross-compilers -- preferably the same
> versions of each as the one in Core.
>
> It'd be particularly nice if we could install native -devel packages
> into each toolchain's sysroot -- we could avoid having to rebuild glibc
> etc. for architectures which are in rawhide, for example. But that isn't
> imperative.
>
> Does anyone else care? Other than the full set of rawhide architectures,
> what others would we include? Alpha, SPARC{64,}, ARM, MIPS, SH I assume?
> Would anyone volunteer to maintain each of those toolchains? I wouldn't
> really feel happy doing it myself, since when it comes to GCC I would
> only ever be a package-monkey, and not a proper _maintainer_.

- From the responses you got, I'd say there's a fair amount of interest.

What do you think about starting small (e.g. generating a mesh of FC x
FC compilers)? Starting with an FC target would mean that we could use
packages we know already work in the Fedora framework. It would just
be a matter of making a specfile (or series of specfiles) that are
cross-friendly to build and package gcc, binutils, glibc and gdb.
I've done that a few times and while it's not exactly pretty, it's
doable. We could generate x86, x86_64, and PPC hosted toolchains for
x86, x86_64 and PPC and then be able to build say PPC packages from an
x86_64 (the immediate benefactor would probably be the build system).
Of course after getting the toolchains packaged, it's a matter of
asking the maintainers to keep their specfiles cross friendly, but if
they'll take patches, we can clean that up.

After we get that done, we could add additional Linux architectures,
such as ARM, MIPS, SH, etc. Or sucker^Wentice someone into adding
uClibc or newlib/dietlibc targets.

Clark



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFE0Qk7Hyuj/+TTEp0RAsNkAKCWuU7EmSnNVbOTyvlrJDSVjjJaGgCgwJ4r
g82hbf8FZYtcTWly2bj406Y=
=UOng
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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