On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 08:36 +0100, A.J.Delaney(a)brighton.ac.uk wrote:
Jochen,
On Sat, 2008-06-21 at 16:21 +0200, Jochen Roth wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> Our suggestion would be to build spu-binutils from the same source as
> >> the system gcc for ppc is build.
> > Theoretically, this would be one possibility, however, practice tells
> > this doesn't work, because there always will be situations when you will
> > want to patch/apply hacks to your cross-binutils,
>
> Yes, we need a separate spu-binutils package for the assembly anyway.
> And then we can build the spu-binutils from the same source tree as the
> systems binutils package.
>From my reading of the matter you and I would both like to see
spu-binutils and spu-gcc pushed into Fedora. I think both of us are in
the dark about how Fedora would like its cross-compilers packaged and
installed. Is there a policy on this?
Nope, there isn't.
All I can say, I for one don't see any reason for treating
cross-toolchain packages any different from any other packages.
Besides of them facing the bugs in rpm/redhat-rpm-config which happen to
render packaging cross-toolchains difficult, and GCC's installation
directory conventions which happen to clash with the FHS, they are
ordinary applications.
Or could someone who has
experience with Fedora compiler packaging suggest how they would like to
see the packaging done.
Well, I happen package cross toolchains for Fedora for
quite some
time[1]. Hans's avr packages inherited some aspects from these during
their package review.
Ralf
[1] cf.
ftp://ftp.rtems.org/pub/rtems/linux