On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 07:40 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-01 at 07:30 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> > There are at least 2 review requests for cross compilers which have been
> > stuck in FE-GUIDELINES for over a year (to the point where the submitter
> > closed the reports) supposedly waiting for specific guidelines for
> > cross-compiling, so I wonder what happened to those guidelines.
>
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/CrossCompilers
That draft needs some work.
IMO, this draft should be deleted.
Ralf added notes to each item that
essentially says "don't need it. don't want it."
I essentially
say: Cross toolchains are ordinary applications. There
should be no need to special case them.
In practice, this is not a much of a problem, with one exception:
The GNU toolchains use ${prefix}/${target_alias}/. This directory is not
covered by the FHS. Changing the GNU toolchains to use something else,
is technically hardly possible (More precisely: It would imply a lot of
hard work and can easily evolve into a package maintainer's nightmare).
I.e. to cater the GNU toolchains practice, only one addition to the
guidelines would be required:
- %_prefix/${target_alias} is reserved for cross toolchains targetting
target "$target_alias
- cross-toolchains must consistently use the same target_alias for all
of its components.
Another wide area would be "recipes to workaround the various bugs in
rpm cross-building triggers". I don't think this should be covered by
the FPG. May-be an addendum to the FPG, or a wiki owned and written by
the "Embedded SIG" would be appropriate.
Better: rpm and redhat-rpm-config should be fixed.
I'd tend to agree with him on everything but the package naming
(I think
having the "cross-" prefix fits in with our existing naming policies),
but I'm not married to it. If the people packaging cross toolchains are
vehemently against that naming, it would be good to know.
I say: Mandating prefixing with "cross-" is non-sense, like mandating
prefixing native tools with "native-" would be. Shall people wanting it
use it, I won't. Package names should be "unique" and "sufficiently
self- explanatory" - For GNU toolchains, I recommend
$target_alias-<component>, but that's just my personal preference.
Ralf