On 09/01/10 16:29, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
Hi -
What are the use cases for the cross-compilers?
If these are to compliment the Fedora secondary archs, then compiling
kernels is probably the main use of cross-compilers -- for example, on
ARM, devices often need a custom
Would it be worth our while putting into Fedora basic gcc and binutils rpms
for cross compilers for all the Linux arches? I keep finding the need to
compile kernels for arches other than the x86_64 boxes I normally use, and I
keep borrowing prebuilt compilers off others (usually Al Viro - thanks
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/01/2010 06:41 AM, David Howells wrote:
Would it be worth our while putting into Fedora basic gcc and binutils rpms
for cross compilers for all the Linux arches? I keep finding the need to
compile kernels for arches other than the x86_64
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 07:21:51AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/01/2010 06:41 AM, David Howells wrote:
Would it be worth our while putting into Fedora basic gcc and binutils rpms
for cross compilers for all the Linux arches? I keep
On 09/01/2010 12:41 PM, David Howells wrote:
Would it be worth our while putting into Fedora basic gcc and binutils rpms
for cross compilers for all the Linux arches? I keep finding the need to
compile kernels for arches other than the x86_64 boxes I normally use, and I
keep borrowing
On 09/01/2010 12:48 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/01/2010 12:41 PM, David Howells wrote:
Would it be worth our while putting into Fedora basic gcc and binutils rpms
for cross compilers for all the Linux arches? I keep finding the need to
compile kernels for arches other than the x86_64
Hi,
- A cross compiler alone is not worth it, you need a whole zoo of
further cross-target packages to make it usable.
Without massive changes to the infrastructure, this would add a
significant amount of packages to the distro.
Depends on what you wanna do with it. For linux kernel
On 09/01/2010 01:53 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 09/01/2010 12:48 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/01/2010 12:41 PM, David Howells wrote:
Would it be worth our while putting into Fedora basic gcc and binutils rpms
for cross compilers for all the Linux arches? I keep finding the need to
On 09/01/2010 01:06 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/01/2010 01:53 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 09/01/2010 12:48 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/01/2010 12:41 PM, David Howells wrote:
Would it be worth our while putting into Fedora basic gcc and
binutils rpms
for cross compilers for all the
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 11:41:34 +0100,
David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
Would it be worth our while putting into Fedora basic gcc and binutils rpms
for cross compilers for all the Linux arches? I keep finding the need to
compile kernels for arches other than the x86_64 boxes I
David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org writes:
The problematic part is GCC, with its horrid incestuous dependencies --
in particular, the way you have to build everything twice because it
insists on building libgcc in the *same* pass as the one it uses to
build gcc itself, and it wants to link
On Wednesday, September 1, 2010, 6:41:34 AM, David Howells wrote:
Would it be worth our while putting into Fedora basic gcc and binutils rpms
for cross compilers for all the Linux arches? I keep finding the need to
compile kernels for arches other than the x86_64 boxes I normally use, and I
b) To equippe the rpm/yum/mock etc. infrastructure with a mechanism to
pull-in foreign binaries into a sys-root (E.g. to install Fedora
*.ppc.rpm rpms into /usr/ppc-redhat/sys-root). So far, such mechanism
doesn't exist.
No need for that eithr. They can figure out
rpm2cpio package | cpio
On Wednesday, September 1, 2010, 9:35:16 AM, I wrote:
On July 7th, 2009, Mark Salter made a post crossbuilding rpms with
koji on the fedora-buildsys-list.
http://www.mail-archive.com/fedora-buildsys-l...@redhat.com/msg02148.html
And for folks who prefer the official archive,
On 09/01/2010 03:37 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
b) To equippe the rpm/yum/mock etc. infrastructure with a mechanism to
pull-in foreign binaries into a sys-root (E.g. to install Fedora
*.ppc.rpm rpms into /usr/ppc-redhat/sys-root). So far, such mechanism
doesn't exist.
No need for that eithr.
On 09/01/2010 02:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 02:06:37PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
- Fedora's rpm and some components the build-infrastructure have serious
issues related to cross-building.
- A cross compiler alone is not worth it, you need a whole zoo of
further
On 09/01/2010 03:02 PM, Rich Mattes wrote:
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:46 AM, David Woodhousedw...@infradead.org wrote:
There's a reason the 'crosstool' and similar scripts are so bloody sick.
Speaking of which, it looks like there's a stalled review of crosstool-ng in
the works [1].
On 09/01/10 16:46, Andrew Haley wrote:
rpm2cpio package | cpio -i -
Isn't that easy, you'll have to do a bunch of fixups after doing so to
have things actually work.
Usually not. Nine times out of ten, (probably 99 out of 100) all you
need for cross-devel is the headers and the libraries,
On 09/01/2010 04:37 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
b) To equippe the rpm/yum/mock etc. infrastructure with a mechanism to
pull-in foreign binaries into a sys-root (E.g. to install Fedora
*.ppc.rpm rpms into /usr/ppc-redhat/sys-root). So far, such mechanism
doesn't exist.
No need for that eithr.
On 09/01/2010 04:00 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On 09/01/10 16:46, Andrew Haley wrote:
rpm2cpio package | cpio -i -
Isn't that easy, you'll have to do a bunch of fixups after doing so to
have things actually work.
Usually not. Nine times out of ten, (probably 99 out of 100) all you
need for
For cross gcc I guess the important question is, do we want
gcc-4*.src.rpm to build all the cross compilers (and, is C enough, or
do we need C++ too?), or do we have one cross-gcc-4*.src.rpm that
semi-loosely tracks gcc-4*.src.rpm and builds all the cross compilers
(BuildRequires all the
21 matches
Mail list logo
