On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Carsten Munk <cars...@maemo.org> wrote: > 2011/10/21 Jeremiah Foster <jeremiah.fos...@pelagicore.com>: >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Carsten Munk <cars...@maemo.org> wrote: >>> 2011/10/21 Lauri T. Aarnio <lauri.t.aar...@nokia.com>: >>>> >>>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 2:44 PM, ext Carsten Munk wrote:
>> But you have to recognize that people are not going to just use your >> packages, they're going to rebuild them. If they're not rebuilding >> your packages, then your particular software or image is not >> interesting for their particular problem. A reliance on a >> overly-complicated toolchain that makes the current process hard to >> reproduce and packages hard to rebuild on a new target or in a >> different build system. Everyone says "use our tool!" but in fact in >> open source you will find there are lots of tools, some of them as >> good as yours. > > I'm not sure what you mean exactly, please elaborate. Cross-compilation of packages may make it hard to rebuild packages on the target. > Besides that, > this discussion is actually about discussing cross compilation > approaches, alternatives, explaining each other's approaches :) For > some cases, multiarch might be good too. > > With regards to 'hard to reproduce', two sides/things we've learnt from > history: > > 1) Packages must not rely on being built inside a specific cross > compilation environment One might argue that you should remove the word "specific" from that sentence and you'd get to a more simple solution. I.e. compile on the target. > This is what made Maemo packages so bloody hard to reproduce on top of > Debian/Ubuntu - they relied on things Scratchbox did. In the OBS > 'cross' approach we try to be as close as possible to as how an ARM > machine would build the package. > > 2) MeeGo cross compilation was a nightmare to reproduce and copy to > other OBS'es and get working properly, due to source packages not > representing the needed contents / links between packages (like gcc to > cross-armv7l-gcc-accel, etc) > > obstag has helped this to some extent and now that we utilize fakeobs > & rsyncable source releases in Mer, anyone can set up a working setup > with ease. [snip legalese] > Someone should outlaw these signatures or at least create logic that > disables them from mailing lists.. Sadly its a requirement in some quarters. :-/ I'll try to remember to trim mine. Regards, Jeremiah _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list MeeGo-dev@meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev http://wiki.meego.com/Mailing_list_guidelines
