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

Re: Cross-compilers.

On Mon, 2006-09-18 at 07:09 -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 08:57:11AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > I agree, however, that there is nothing _fundamentally_ evil about
> There is a lot fundamentally evil about autotools, it uses perl to start
> with.
Except that you personally seem to hate Perl and apparently feel like
having to reiterate your opinion, it's an implementation detail, not of
any importance to it's function.

BTW: perl is the least problematic part of the autotools. The most
problematic ones are shells and m4, plus people outsmarting themselves
by abusing the autotools.

> > autotools. Autotools don't kill cross-compilation; people do. Autotools
> > just seem to make it easy.
> Autotools also makes it extremely hard to debug a cross compilation problem.
How that?

> Neither does it deal with repeatability, consider what happens if you cross
> build a package during beta and it works then native build it during final
> and it doesn't.
And how is this problem related to the autotools?

Use 2 different build directories and appropriate host/build/target
tuples and you're done.

>  The vaguaries of the compiler and cross compiler suite can
> cause this to bite you very occasionally.
Sure, ... this would you hit with other buildsystem in the same way.

> It would be good to be able to cross build Fedora, if only for slow old 
> architectures and embedded where its pretty essential.


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