[fedora-arm] Cross-Compilers for ARM

[Manas Saksena]

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