On 09/01/10 16:29, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
What are the use cases for the cross-compilers?
If these are to compliment the Fedora secondary archs, then compiling
kernels is probably the main use of cross-compilers -- for example, on
ARM, devices often need a custom kernel to go with a standard rootfs.
Once you're up on the device, you can build there, or you can use koji.
It's a principle of secondary archs that packages are built natively,
either on hardware or in emulation.
On the other hand, if you're trying to cross-compile userspace, that's a
whole different thing -- a lot more work, and perhaps much less needed.
From using the ARM Fedora Cross Compiler stuff David and Lennert did, I
think this comment is very much to the point.
The cross stuff was really valuable for providing a standardized way to
build and develop bootloader and kernel. But for everything else, it
was simpler and more reliable to do it on the device itself in its real
"environment" in terms of dependencies, not least you only have one
"world" to manage there.
So the big win is just having cross-gcc and binutils; any more than that
it grows into trying to handle build and management of cross-everything
which is better done native anyway.
(Would particularly love to see a cross MIPS packageset...)