From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Mike Frysinger" Subject: Re: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:02:13 -0400 Message-ID: <8bd0f97a0806121202t4b61bbd9x843cf9427318e9fd@mail.gmail.com> 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> <8bd0f97a0806120905u532ce5f9sf231e185173de791@mail.gmail.com> <625fc13d0806121129h23eb919dt3661016f82aad266@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=iA5+U8QlH6Lpr+EznxZ2iYeDE1scrPKGT4IKSy7XJM8=; b=h66hZf+DchQuycwnKQ1GObu+gcUOX+ReJ2czLSVlC+z/M9Fe66PQDtPA74A/W6IQVL LNiYkcFuXVVkadpXEpnAMJKSmPLr0tq0BdMyPWJWNVDL0FCeByI+pHvnRQXubX2Mcp68 k/gTF1EdmF1AlP9FnuRvFYS8vICUzD9VjlDso= In-Reply-To: <625fc13d0806121129h23eb919dt3661016f82aad266@mail.gmail.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Josh Boyer Cc: David Woodhouse , Tim Bird , Rob Landley , Greg Ungerer , Sam Ravnborg , Leon Woestenberg , linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:05 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:50 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: >>> On Thu, 2008-06-12 at 08:23 -0700, Tim Bird wrote: >>>> Rob Landley wrote: >>>> > However, having one or more full-time engineers devoted to debugging >>>> > cross-compile issues is quite a high price to pay too. Moore's law really >>>> > doesn't help that one. >>>> > >>>> > I'm not saying either solution is perfect, I'm just saying the "build under >>>> > emulation" approach is a viable alternative that gets more attractive as time >>>> > passes, both because of ongoing development on emulators and because of >>>> > Moore's law on the hardware. >>>> >>>> I agree with much that you have said, Rob, and I understand the argument >>>> for getting the most gain from the least resources, but I have a philosophical >>>> problem with working around the cross-compilation problems instead of fixing >>>> them in the upstream packages (or in the autoconf system itself). >>>> >>>> Once someone fixes the cross-compilation issues for a package, they usually >>>> stay fixed, if the fixes are mainlined. >>> >>> I don't think that's true, unfortunately. Autoconf makes it _easy_ to do >>> the wrong thing, and people will often introduce new problems. >>> >>> If we just made people write portable code and proper Makefiles, it >>> would be less of an issue :) >> >> people cant even write proper *native* makefiles. mtd-utils for example ;). > > What's wrong with it? I'll fix it. is linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org not the place to post ? that's where i sent the first fix yesterday ... not that i'm subscribed since i dont have a direct interest in mtd development ... -mike