Re: crosstool build matrix ambiguity

[Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>]

Allan Clark wrote:
> The discrepancy I am pointing at is the RPM/SRPM work... I'm trying to 
> differentiate a (gcc/glibc/linux) 3.2.3/2.2.5/2.4.19 toolchain from a 
> 3.2.3/2.3.3/2.4.19 toolchain from a 3.2.3/2.2.5/2.4.21 toolchain in RPM 
> depenedencies, and would want them all to possibly coexist

I'd rather work to make sure that one toolchain
could produce apps acceptable to all kernels newer
than a given version (say, 2.4.3).  I bet it can be done,
especially with the sanitized headers.

> I've lost 
> my current contract (ie sponsorship for my hacking), but working to pick 
> up another where I would be standardizing the build process for a 
> company's linux-based consumer devices, and I've Drank the Koolaid on 
> RPM dependencies and "apt-get upgrade".  This co-existing and RPM 
> subpackages granularity would help verify the kernel versions too.  I 
> currently am too lazy to show sanitized/un-, binutils versions, etc.

Hey, cool, somebody who likes RPM building.
I'm looking forward to your feedback on my RPM/SRPM stuff.
It ought to be posted pretty soon... if you want to see
a preview, let me know, I can send you the spec file template I use.
- Dan

--
Trying to get a job as a c++ developer?  See http://kegel.com/academy/getting-hired.html

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com