On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 13:43 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> 2. As I understand it you employ the Fedora/x86 style of not using a
> cross-compiler to build these packages, but rather build them with ARM
> on ARM. I am aware of some RPM derivatives like those used by
> MontaVista, that employ a cross-compiler instead. What are your thought
> on these issues? Have you tested both solutions and come to the
> conclusion that the all-ARM-enclosed build system is the way to go?
>
In my somewhat limited experience cross-compiling of software which is not
designed for that from day one is a big pain, let alone cross-compiling an
entire distro!
Is there an existing, binary distributed target-distro?
If yes, then using a sys-rooted cross-compiler in combination with
prebuilt binaries is a fairly simple escape. This quite helpful when
only wanting to occasionally build a couple of packages (or when not
having permanent access to the target systems), while another sources
supply most target binaries.
I for one apply this for building target binaries for target OSes I
don't use myself.
There are indeed some hacks around rpm to make the packahes
think they are being build nativly, but what I've seen these are very gross
hacks and still break often.
Well, RH's rpm and redhat-rpm-config are grossly
broken when it comes to
cross-building rpms. Many things work once you kick redhat-rpm-config
out :(
Native compiling definitively is the way to go,
This is only
applicable for sufficiently performing targets.
Esp. for low end targets this is close to impossible.
an alternative might be
emulating the native system and building in the emulated system.
With a few
exceptions, in practice, this is rarely applicable, esp. when
it comes to "less mainstream" targets.
Ralf