Re: Cross compiling RPMs

[Mike McDonald <mikemac@mikemac.com>]

>Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 11:52:05 +0100 (MET)
>From: Karel van Houten <K.H.C.vanHouten@research.kpn.com>
>Subject: Re: Cross compiling RPMs
>To: mikemac@mikemac.com (Mike McDonald)
>
>Mike wrote:
>> 
>>   If one were to go the native compiling route, what would the minimum
>> set of rpms needed be? kernel, bin-utils, cc. file-utils? ???
>> 
>
>It depends on what and how you want to compile. To use rpm, you need
>quite a lot tools (db3, patch, sed, grep, find,...). Beside that
>you'll at least need glibc, binutils, gcc, and make. But you'll find
>out that you'll have to compile flex, bison, m4, automake, autoconf,
>and even perl to get rpm builds going. My mipsel native environment
>currently has the following packages:

  I was thinking of what the MINIMUM set of RPMs you needed installed
so you could bootstrap a system up from sources, not what's the
minimum needed to recompile any arbitrary RPM.

>But you surely can start with less... :-)

  With less than 150 files installed in a root file system, I can
install the bin-utils, gcc, make, and glibc RPMs. From there, I should
be able to begin cross compiling the other basic RPMs for a system.
That's my ultimate goal.

  Mike McDonald
  mikemac@mikemac.com