fedora for ARM

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 13:43 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Linus Walleij wrote:
> > 
> > 2. As I understand it you employ the Fedora/x86 style of not using a
> >    cross-compiler to build these packages, but rather build them with ARM
> >    on ARM. I am aware of some RPM derivatives like those used by
> >    MontaVista, that employ a cross-compiler instead. What are your thought
> >    on these issues? Have you tested both solutions and come to the
> >    conclusion that the all-ARM-enclosed build system is the way to go?
> > 
> 
> In my somewhat limited experience cross-compiling of software which is not 
> designed for that from day one is a big pain, let alone cross-compiling an 
> entire distro!
Is there an existing, binary distributed target-distro?

If yes, then using a sys-rooted cross-compiler in combination with
prebuilt binaries is a fairly simple escape. This quite helpful when
only wanting to occasionally build a couple of packages (or when not
having permanent access to the target systems), while another sources
supply most target binaries.

I for one apply this for building target binaries for target OSes I
don't use myself.

>  There are indeed some hacks around rpm to make the packahes 
> think they are being build nativly, but what I've seen these are very gross 
> hacks and still break often.
Well, RH's rpm and redhat-rpm-config are grossly broken when it comes to
cross-building rpms. Many things work once you kick redhat-rpm-config
out :(

> Native compiling definitively is the way to go,
This is only applicable for sufficiently performing targets. 
Esp. for low end targets this is close to impossible.

>  an alternative might be 
> emulating the native system and building in the emulated system.
With a few exceptions, in practice, this is rarely applicable, esp. when
it comes to "less mainstream" targets.

Ralf