This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.

See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [distcc] Re: crosstool and .rpm's


On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 19:23, Daniel Kegel wrote:
> Daniel Kegel wrote:
> > Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > 
> >>> (I still don't know how to
> >>> make a single .SRPM for multiple targets, though.
> >>
> >>
> >> It's darn complicated ;)
> >>
> >>> From my experience (I am the author of the RTEMS cross toolchain
> >>
> >> rpm-specs), if you really want to provide a single SRPM, you probably
> >> will have to resort to passing the target via rpm-defines
> >> (rpmbuild --define 'xtarget xxxx').
> > 
> > 
> > Oooh, then there's also the --target flag.  Maybe that's the standard
> > way to do it...
> 
> No, darn it, that's for setting the host system type.
Exactly. RPMS --target corresponds to a cross compiler's --host.

... but, then ...
...  there is rpm's %build, which is something completely different than
--build.
... different rpm/rpmbuild implementations contain several hard-coded
assumptions on the host into it (esp. on RH/FC), e.g. %target and
%target_platform are hard-code into some versions of rpm, not worth
mentioning brp-strip related issues (RH/FC's implementation is not able
to handle foreign binaries, such as target libs.)
... different rpm/rpmbuild implementations (e.g. RH/FC) are not able to
handle installations to outside of "/" or "/usr" (e.g. "/opt").

>   How confusing.
> So in the final solution, one would use --target to set what machine
> the compilers will run on,
Theoretically, yes.

However, I've never managed to get this working - the hard-coded stuff
has always broken something somewhere (Some versions of rpm/rpmbuild do
not even correctly evaluate the searchpath for rpm-macros.).

>  and --define 'realtarget powerpc-405-linux-gnu'
> to set what machine that compilers will generate code for.
Yes, sounds reasonable to me.

Similar problems exist with passing  a cross-compilers system to rpm for
3-leaf Canadian Crosses ;)

> I'm going to skip all that for today, but keep it in mind for later.

Ralf



------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]