Proposal: cross-compiling / development packaging guidelines

[Hans de Goede]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-21 at 16:26 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
<snip>

> 
> The default for GCC is ${prefix}/$(target)/{lib|include}. 
> This default is almost impossible to change.
> 

I'm glad the things I "came up" with, closely match how you do things, thats 
good to hear and for me a confirment that I'm on the right track.

>> 5) Docs (manpages, info and docs under %doc) will not be installed as they
>>     will be identical to the native version docs,
> 
> What you say only partially applies to gcc/binutils/gdb. Their section 3
> man-pages are canonicalized (they install as <target>-manpage), hence
> are free of conflicts with a native gcc. section-7 man-pages and infos
> however conflict.
> 

Okay, so since the are installed as <target>-manpage, they won't conflict, but 
will they contain any different content? I see no difference between "man 
arm-linux-as" and "man as", since there is no difference is it worth installing 
the same manpage twice, I know that one might only install the cross-toolchain 
and not the native one, but then we will be missing the section 7 manpages, 
info files etc already, and what are the changes of someone actually objecting 
to installing the native toolchain (even if just to get the docs)?


> This is the classical standard GCC wrapper approach for non-multilib'ed cross-toolchains.
> 

So even more agreement good to hear :)

>> 8) The SRPMS for all these packages will most of the time contain the exact
>>     same tarbals as the native binutils / gcc / libs
>>
>>     Possible solutions:
>>     a) Live with the extra diskspace / bandwidth cost this induces upon
>>        our mirrors
> That's what I'd do.
> 
> An alternative would be to build different versions inside of the same
> SRPMS at one time.
> 

That would require coordination between the cross-compile stuff maintainer and 
the native maintainer, also that would force a rebuild of both native and cross 
compile stuff if one of the 2 changes. I thought of this too but I don't see 
this as a very realistic option.


Regards,

Hans