Clark Williams wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Manas Saksena wrote:
Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 07:10:26PM -0700, Manas Saksena wrote:
Now that we have a substantial chunk of the packages built for ARM, I think it would be interesting to see if we can build a
cross-compiler
that is aligned with the native toolchain. And, at this stage, we
dont
need to worry about bootstrapping gcc since we already have a glibc available.
I think it would be useful to bundle a cross-compiler/debugger
toolchain
with the release even if all the other packages are built
natively. As
much of the development tends to be with the kernel and the applications, the cross-compiler is virtually a necessity for those.
Is anyone interested in working on that?
Sorry for the late reply -- see:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-June/msg02597.html
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-June/msg02739.html
Binary i386 -> ARM packages are here:
http://www.wantstofly.org/~buytenh/cross/I was wondering if it would be possible to package this up in a way that would be easy to install.
For e.g., a cross-toolchain package, which requires all the other packages -- gcc, binutils, etc. (not sure how to deal with glibc in that context). So, you can just do:
yum install cross-toolchain-arm
and, you have everything you need.
Manas,
We have been experimenting with packaging our GNUPro tools as one big RPM. We're currently holding the One-Big-RPM vs. Multiple-Not-So-Big-RPMS debate, but we actually have built a cross toolchain and packaged it as an RPM, since you can do that in an SRPM; if you have multiple SRPMS you have to have some synchronization logic for the bootstrapping and we don't have that currently.
What I had in mind was to have a "meta-package" that simply requires gcc, binutils, etc. So, a yum install of the "meta-package" would give you the full toolchain.
If you punt on bootstrapping (i.e., treat it as a separate problem), then it should not be that hard to maintain it. What I was hoping for was that we could use the same binutils, gcc, glibc, gdb SRPMs to build in both a cross-build and a native build environment, and that way you can make also ensure that there is no mismatch between a cross-toolchain and a native toolchain.
It's not aligned with the Fedora toolchain, but it's close. It's currently one package with gcc-4.2.1, binutils-2.17 and glibc-2.6. I'm also pretty sure it's never been built using a mock chroot, so getting all this going in koji is going to be an "interesting" exercise. But I'm willing to give it a shot. Well, me and Brendan that is :)
You interested?
Sure -- definitely worth a try. I think it would be a good idea to do the experimentation on cross-toolchain/development stuff until we reach some agreement on what makes most sense. So, if you can move some of the debate on one-big-rpm vs multiple-rpms out here, then that would be most welcome as well.
Regards, Manas