On 08/09/2011 06:54 PM, NightStrike wrote:
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Farkas Levente
<lfarkas(a)lfarkas.org> wrote:
> hi,
> is there any reason why there is a separate crt and headers packages?
> - why there is not one common source when the source is common?
> - why there is not one common binary (noarch) rpm when both required for
> development? or we don't need the crt after we build gcc?
> but even in this case wouldn't be useful to merge these packages source?
>
> ps. anyway i'm just like to update it to the 2.0 rc1.
You guys are probably just mimicking us. We break it out into
separate directories because the headers are needed at one point in
the toolchain build and the crt is needed at another. Further, some
of our users only have a need of a subset of what we provide, so we
make it easier for them.
I can't see a reason for a distro to separate it out, tho.
Fedora needs them separate for the very same reason -- the headers and
the crt are needed at different times when boostrapping the toolchain.
We have lots of different architectures (i686, x86_64, ppc, ppc64, arm,
arm with hardfp, s390x and probably more I forgot) and all of these need
bootstrapping. Having separate packages makes it easier to bootstrap
each individual architecture. If there was one single package containing
crt + headers, we'd have to modify the spec file to turn the crt off and
on while in the middle of bootstrapping; separating the two packages
avoids that.
See this wiki page on how we bootstrap the toolchain in Fedora:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW/CrossCompilerFramework#Phase_3:_Boots...
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Farkas Levente
<lfarkas(a)lfarkas.org> wrote:
> ps. anyway i'm just like to update it to the 2.0 rc1.
Talk to epienbro on IRC, I belive he already started work on this.
Hope this helps,
Kalev