Re: Fedora and Cross Compiling

[Brendan Conoboy <blc redhat com>]

David Woodhouse wrote:
> Do we _actually_ need to build parts of glibc? Could we not get away
> with a fake DSO which just provides the few symbols libgcc uses?

[snip]

Will follow up on this part tomorrow.  I disfavor faking it, as it were.

> Binutils at least should be relatively easy. Here's a patch against
> binutils/F-7 which lets me:
>   make DIST_DEFINES='--define "binutils_target i686-linux-gnu"' ppc
>
> Even for this we have build system questions... how best to build it for
> each target architecture we want?

Generally, I think Hans and the rest at 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Embedded have the right idea here. 
Prefixing the target name to the package is a good plan for most 
crosses.  More fully, I see 3 options:

1.  One srpm to rule them all.  This seems like a bad idea as it doesn't 
scale.

2.  One srpm which generates multiple crosses.  This might be in the 
form of one package for the Fedora mesh, another for all mips targets, 
and so forth.  The realm of when somebody wants to be a cross-arch-czar 
or there is some technical reason to bunch them together.

3.  One srpm which generates packages for a single cross, like Hans's 
arm-gp2x-linux-package effort

I favor a combination of #2 and #3.  I'll see about adapting your 
binutils patch to accommodate multiple targets, unless people think this 
is a really bad idea.

--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc redhat com