-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Manas Saksena wrote:
DJ Delorie wrote:
> > If you punt on bootstrapping
> Keep in mind that our group specializes in cross compiling, so
> bootstrapping is not something we usually punt ;-)
What I meant was that you dont have to use the same SRPMs to do
the initial bootstrap. That makes your SRPMs a bit-cleaner and
they dont have to be cluttered with "bootstrap" special case.
And, once you have built your initial toolchain, you can use
that to bootstrap subsequent builds. Only occasionally, you
have to and do a full bootstrap all over again.
I see a difference in philosophy developing already :)
In general we bootstrap all the time, since we're trying to ensure that all the
pieces work together. Either that or we're incredibly pedantic. Probably both...
The advantage of bootstrapping every time is that you know all the parts were built
with the same set of assumptions. It's not nearly as bad as bootstrapping a native,
since you don't have the stageN steps to manage.
For my part, I see much more potential for configuration problems with trying to
mix-n-match the set of arm-linux-gcc, arm-linux-binutils, arm-linux-glibc and
potentially arm-linux-gdb packages, than just bootstrapping everything into one
To be fair, I suppose your counter is that my approach would make it harder to track
the fedora tools. Hmmmm, I'll have to think about that.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----