I'm more of the mindset for this we need to be Fedora based, or some other common point of reference (both cross compiled and not) so that it's easy to see what changes we made to another frame of reference.
I'm familiar with making Fedora packages cross compile myself. And we have many of these packaging cross compiling already. --Mark -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Andy Green Sent: Mon 6/4/2007 12:37 PM To: rpm-devel@rpm5.org Subject: Re: reference implementation Mark Hatle wrote: > This is similar to what I would propose if we want to also do an > embedded (maybe better referenced as a cross-compiled) reference > implementation. Seems to be my shameless self-promotion day today... I have such a cross-compiled rpm-based distro at http://octotux.org The packages are at http://rpm.octotux.org > Basic stuff such as: > > kernel headers (for userspace) > glibc > util-linux > coreutils > bash (or other shell) I use busybox ash, but in fact I did crosscompile bash too and it worked fine. I built on top of the tiny rpm implementation that was already in busybox to give foppish fripperies like -e and a kind of package database. The specfiles are newbieish because this project was how I got started with packaging, but the packages do actually crosscompile with the %build recipes and are full normal RPMs. But before it could be any kind of "reference" it would need work cleaning the spec files at least. I think a minidistro that can natively crosscompile to any target cpu would be very cool, everyone is their own arch build farm. -Andy ______________________________________________________________________ RPM Package Manager http://rpm5.org Developer Communication List rpm-devel@rpm5.org
