sdcc - Cross Compiler, Needs Packaging Standards?
Hans de Goede
j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl
Fri Feb 23 20:38:23 UTC 2007
Warren Togami wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226795
>
> It appears that a few folks want sdcc, but do the packaging standards
> for cross compilers and the concern about names being dropped into
> /usr/bin should be solved first?
>
1) The cross compile stuff being discussed so far was about a cross
compiling binutils + gcc + libs, sdcc is a whole different compiler,
which comes with its own libc (I think) etc. packaging sdcc sure
would be interesting, and could/should try to follow the guidelines
being developed for cross-gcc where possible
2) About the cross compiling gcc guidelines I've been having both on and
off-list discussions on this topic with Ralf Corsepius, mostly we
agree on what I proposed in my initial mail about this from this
week:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2007-February/msg00329.html
Besides my post we also have:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/CrossCompilers?highlight=%28Packaging%29
Which was created by Tibbs over a year ago in response to a package
review request for cross-compile stuff by Ralf. This is mostly
compatible with my proposal, but less complete. The only difference
is that both Ralf and I don't like the proposed prefixing of cross-
in front of the packages, if one installs arm-linux-gcc on a x86_64,
its obvious that its a cross compiler and the names will get long
enough with just prefixing the canonical target.
Other then from Ralf I have had 0 replies. Ralf had the same
experience when submitting 2 packages as a first try for review, that
was over a year ago and noone has responded, except for Tibbs setting
up the wiki page, which also has bitrotted since then.since Ralf and
I seem to be the only ones seriously enough interested in this to
actually invest time, I suggest that we (Ralf and I) form a
cross-compile / embedded SIG and work out a set of guidelines for
cross stuff within this SIG, much like the Games SIG has some
additional Guidelines for games.
Since Ralf and I agree for 99.9% on my proposal, this really is
almost done. The only thing which I want discussed in a wider
audience / need more input in is the SRPM issue, quoting from my
original mail:
"The SRPMS for all these packages will most of the time contain the
exact same tarbals as the native binutils / gcc / libs
Possible solutions:
a) Live with the extra diskspace / bandwidth cost this induces upon
our mirrors
b) *** Warning dirty hack ***
Test for the existence of the tarbal in RPM_SOURCE_DIR in %prep
and if it isn't there bail with a message howto get the tarbal
from the srpms for the native packages. We can use the sources
file and the look-aside cache to make the test for the tarbal
succeed on the buildsys. Advantages: saves tons of diskspace.
Disadvantage: slight inconvienience for people trying to rebuild
the srpm's manually. Large inconvienience for people doing
automated rebuilds (aurora for example)
I honestly don't know what todo here. I kinda like solution b),
except for the pain it causes to aurora and possible others."
So what do you think / any advice on the SRPM issue Warren?
Regards,
Hans
More information about the fedora-extras-list
mailing list