On 07/15/2017 06:17 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Fedora hasn't supported anything less than ARMv7 (armhfp) since
Fedora 18.
Not what I was hoping. But lack of an armel build isn't a long term issue.
Do any contemporary Fedora ARM derivatives exist which may still maintain
armel build infrastructure?
No, we don't support cross compiling anything except the kernel.
There's lots of complexity in dealing with cross compiling and there's
code that's run during the builds that needs to run on the actual
architecture that's not actually compiling.
My information admittedly is dated. When i was involved a number of years
ago, effort was being expended to support Fedora SRPM cross build by Marvell
and others IIRC. Appears moot now.
> - Beyond cross builds infrastructure support is the question of
what degree SRPMs
> themselves support cross platform builds. This being an embedded platform,
runtime
> needs are minimal (no graphics, no heavy scripting languages, applications, etc..
> So we're not faced with building a conventional workstation class RPM userland
content.
I don't understand what you mean by that statement/question.
I was assuming cross build of SRPMs may still be supported but probably wasn't
as complete as the case of a native build. That wouldn't likely have been an issue
for this embedded use case and the core userland runtime is most of what is
required. Again moot.
The Fedora infrastructure runs 32 bit VMs as builders running on 64
bit hardware.
64-bit ARM or x86_64 host hardware? If ARM is that leveraging kvm to accelerate
the 32-bit VM?
aarch64 is quite a bit different to ARMv7 in terms of instructions
so
we don't support a multilib style env like x86_64/i686 does.
So the model is a strict self-hosted native build where the host's distro and
toolchain is exactly that of the target, correct?
Thanks,
-john