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 custo
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 21:50 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Ralf Corsepius 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-roo
On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Ralf Corsepius 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.
You should be able to f
> 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
Chris Tyler wrote:
> 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
I've talked to a number of kernel developers, all of whom would like this.
> Once you're up on th
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 17:00 +0200, 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
Gerd Hoffmann writes:
> Last time I did I had to (a) move stuff from $sysroot/usr/... to
> $sysroot/ to have compiler and linker find it.
Then your compiler/linker was misconfigured.
> Also fixup paths in the linker scripts (try 'cat /usr/lib64/libc.so').
If you configure your linker with a s
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) a
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 f
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
On 09/01/2010 03:02 PM, Rich Mattes wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:46 AM, David Woodhouse 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]. Perhaps it'd b
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 zo
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 f
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,
http://www
>> 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 pa
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
David Woodhouse 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 libgcc_s against
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 11:41:34 +0100,
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
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:46 AM, David Woodhouse 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]. Perhaps it'd be worthwhile in lieu of a complete set of
cross RPMs?
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 compile
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 13:31 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > I hope cross Fortran and especially cross Java (or cross Ada/ObjC/ObjC++)
> > aren't needed, especially libjava builds for eons and has myriads of target
> > dependencies.
>
> For my purposes, C is sufficient.
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I hope cross Fortran and especially cross Java (or cross Ada/ObjC/ObjC++)
> aren't needed, especially libjava builds for eons and has myriads of target
> dependencies.
For my purposes, C is sufficient. No one's persuaded Linus to take C++ into
the kernel yet, except as na
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 cross-target packages to make
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
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 c
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 x8
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 pr
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 k
-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
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
30 matches
Mail list logo
