On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 2:26 AM, fedora_arm
<fedora_arm(a)third-harmonic.com> wrote:
On 07/15/2017 06:17 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> Fedora hasn't supported anything less than ARMv7 (armhfp) since Fedora 18.
Not what I was hoping. But lack of an armel build isn't a long term issue.
Do any contemporary Fedora ARM derivatives exist which may still maintain
armel build infrastructure?
None I'm aware of, there's been a number of attempts for ARMv6 to
support original RPi/Pi Zero but even they're mostly dead.
> No, we don't support cross compiling anything except the
kernel.
> There's lots of complexity in dealing with cross compiling and there's
> code that's run during the builds that needs to run on the actual
> architecture that's not actually compiling.
My information admittedly is dated. When i was involved a number of years
ago, effort was being expended to support Fedora SRPM cross build by Marvell
and others IIRC. Appears moot now.
I've been involved in Fedora ARM for over 7 years, lead the build
effort since F-14 and we've never cross compiled except pre rpm phase
when boot strapping very core central bits of booting Linux for a new
arch IE armhfp or aarch64.
>> - Beyond cross builds infrastructure support is the question
of what degree SRPMs
>> themselves support cross platform builds. This being an embedded platform,
runtime
>> needs are minimal (no graphics, no heavy scripting languages, applications,
etc..
>> So we're not faced with building a conventional workstation class RPM
userland content.
> I don't understand what you mean by that statement/question.
I was assuming cross build of SRPMs may still be supported but probably wasn't
as complete as the case of a native build. That wouldn't likely have been an issue
for this embedded use case and the core userland runtime is most of what is
required. Again moot.
Well a SRPM is essentially noarch or agnostic so it doesn't matter
what arch you create it on it's consumable across all arches hence I
still don't understand what the question is.
> The Fedora infrastructure runs 32 bit VMs as builders running on
64
> bit hardware.
64-bit ARM or x86_64 host hardware? If ARM is that leveraging kvm to accelerate
the 32-bit VM?
aarch64 as accelerated VMs using kvm. Not all aarch64 hardware supports that.
> aarch64 is quite a bit different to ARMv7 in terms of
instructions so
> we don't support a multilib style env like x86_64/i686 does.
So the model is a strict self-hosted native build where the host's distro and
toolchain is exactly that of the target, correct?
Correct.