From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Woodhouse Subject: Re: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...) Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:17:04 +0100 Message-ID: <1213355824.26255.245.camel@pmac.infradead.org> References: <1209577322.25560.402.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <200806102235.09598.rob@landley.net> <484F66F8.4020409@snapgear.com> <200806111941.51221.rob@landley.net> <48513F5A.6010008@am.sony.com> <1213285831.26255.152.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20080612160845.GB9327@linux-sh.org> <48514E9A.3080901@billgatliff.com> <1213288655.26255.168.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Bill Gatliff , Paul Mundt , Tim Bird , Rob Landley , Greg Ungerer , Sam Ravnborg , Leon Woestenberg , linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 13:15 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > For minimal file systems with a select handful of tools which can be > > tested exhaustively, it's not so bad. But for any 'full-featured' > > userspace, I think cross-compilation is completely insane. > > So, how does OpenWRT manage to survive? I don't consider that a 'full-featured' userspace. Or particularly sane, for that matter :) -- dwmw2