Re: another proposed crosstool project

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday at mindspring dot com>]

On Sat, 5 May 2007, David Kahn wrote:

> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> >  for instance, the toolchain would be hardcoded to be "sysroot"ed
> > since that's just plain better than *not* being sysrooted.
>
> That wouldn't work for me.
>
> The x-tools that I build are used for projects and the tools have to
> be put in accessible places on the network, and used by those
> projects in consistent ways. For example, /ws/sysfw-tools/...
>
> But if you think that works for you, have at it. Just understand
> that because of that, and probably because of not downloading all
> the packages needed, it won't have all that much generic use. And I
> can't imagine that there's just one set of option choices that work
> in all cases.
>
> KISS is good. Unfortunately, it's just not that simple of a process
> to support all the variants of hosts and targets.

fair enough, but i did say that i was coming at it from the other
direction from crosstool and ct-ng -- while those versions give you
all sorts of configuration freedom, i'm trying to identify the
absolute *minimal* amount of work it takes to build a regular, working
toolchain that works for 98% (?) of the people.  (not to mention that
this is a reasonably educational thing to do since it makes it clear
what happens at each step.)

also, if you can build a toolchain as simply as possible, then it's
generally not hard to go back later and tweak the configuration.  all
this mini-ct script is doing is showing that a toolchain can be
*built* in the first place, which is useful information.

rday
-- 
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

http://fsdev.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
========================================================================

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq