[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bulding cross-toolchains in the archive

+++ Jonathan Nieder [2012-01-31 12:55 -0600]:
> Wookey wrote:
> > This could be done as one package which builds binutils-<triplet> and
> > gcc-<triplet>. In that case you could use the ubuntu package
> > armel-cross-toolchain-base-<ver> as inspiration, but that can be
> > significantly simplified as there is no need to do the 3-stage
> > bootstrap, or build eglibc or linux-headers. 
> >
> > Or it could be done as a package that builds binutils-<triplet>, and
> > another that builds gcc-<triplet>.
> For binutils-<triplet>, see also http://bugs.debian.org/623953#20
> as another potential starting point.

Thanks for that - I was not aware of it. 

> gcc-<triplet> is harder because the project does not currently permit
> cross-architecture dependencies.  

This is indeed currently true, but after discussion at last year's
debconf (as mentioned further up this thread) there are no major
objections to allowing them for sensible use-cases, and
cross-toolchains is such a sensible use-case. 

We need to make the tech work and show that we have a package to
upload which would build stuff, then agree what is/isn't allowed and
make changes to the build infrastructure accordingly. Hopefully we can
make some progress on that by this year's debconf...

Things are complicated in the compiler case by the continuing need for
bi-arch toolchains for the time being. AIUI making bi-arch toolchains
and multiarch toolchains from the same packaging is painful. 

Principal hats:  Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM

Reply to: