[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Cross toolchain support for SPUs on Cell / ppc64

On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 08:36 +0100, A J Delaney brighton ac uk wrote:
> Jochen,
> On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 16:21 +0200, Jochen Roth wrote:
> > Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > >> Our suggestion would be to build spu-binutils from the same source as 
> > >> the system gcc for ppc is build.
> > > Theoretically, this would be one possibility, however, practice tells
> > > this doesn't work, because there always will be situations when you will
> > > want to patch/apply hacks to your cross-binutils,
> > 
> > Yes, we need a separate spu-binutils package for the assembly anyway.
> > And then we can build the spu-binutils from the same source tree as the 
> > systems binutils package.

> >From my reading of the matter you and I would both like to see
> spu-binutils and spu-gcc pushed into Fedora.  I think both of us are in
> the dark about how Fedora would like its cross-compilers packaged and
> installed.  Is there a policy on this?
Nope, there isn't. 

All I can say, I for one don't see any reason for treating
cross-toolchain packages any different from any other packages.
Besides of them facing the bugs in rpm/redhat-rpm-config which happen to
render packaging cross-toolchains difficult, and GCC's installation
directory conventions which happen to clash with the FHS, they are
ordinary applications.

>   Or could someone who has
> experience with Fedora compiler packaging suggest how they would like to
> see the packaging done.
Well, I happen package cross toolchains for Fedora for quite some
time[1]. Hans's avr packages inherited some aspects from these during
their package review.


[1] cf. ftp://ftp.rtems.org/pub/rtems/linux

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]