Bug 475934

Summary: Review Request: m6812-elf-binutils - Cross Compiling GNU binutils targeted at m68hc12
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Brennan Ashton <bashton>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: fedora-package-review, notting, rc040203
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-11-07 20:28:41 EST Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 201449    

Description Brennan Ashton 2008-12-11 00:59:38 EST
Spec URL: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/m6812-elf-binutils.spec
SRPM URL: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/m6812-elf-binutils-2.15-1.fc10.src.rpm
This is a Cross Compiling version of GNU binutils, which can be used to
assemble and link binaries for the m68hc12 platform, instead of for the
native platform.

Patch 1 will not be submitted upstream as upstream already fixes it in later versions.  The later version is not being used as the cross compiler patch set may not be compatible. 

rpmlint is clean except for:
m6812-elf-binutils.i386: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr m6812-elf
which is ok for cross compilers
Comment 1 Brennan Ashton 2008-12-11 01:16:19 EST
koji built fine:
Comment 2 Brennan Ashton 2008-12-12 03:26:06 EST
please hold off reviewing this as the gcc part that needs this may need to use a newer version, due to a gcc 4 incompatibility with building gcc 3 and the crosscompiler upstream work being done on gcc 3
Comment 3 Ralf Corsepius 2008-12-12 09:38:41 EST
Are you sure you want to ship something such kind of outdated as binutils-2.15?

To my knowledge (I have never used it), the m6812 is actively maintained in upstream binutils and supported "out of the box" in current version of binutils (2.19).
Comment 4 Brennan Ashton 2008-12-12 10:17:43 EST
my understanding is they have kind of a strange development cycle. You have gcc/binuilts upstream that is doing there work, and then you have another GNU project that works on it as well. They have a fairly large patch set, but are maintaining it for the gcc 3.3.5 and binutils, these included new test cases and some things that they call "stability fixed" what ever that means. These are slowly pulled into upstream.  I want to look into this more and do some real hardware tests before someone spends the time to review this package.
Comment 5 Ralf Corsepius 2008-12-12 12:44:02 EST
(In reply to comment #4)
> my understanding is they have kind of a strange development cycle.
Who is "they"?
Comment 6 Brennan Ashton 2008-12-12 19:25:17 EST
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > my understanding is they have kind of a strange development cycle.
> Who is "they"?

Those in charge of the m6812 part of gcc.  The group that I am talking about that has the patches is http://www.gnu-m68hc11.org/m68hc11_inst_ptc.php
Comment 7 Ralf Corsepius 2008-12-13 03:07:19 EST
> http://www.gnu-m68hc11.org/m68hc11_inst_ptc.php
/me thinks, this page is obsolete, for 2 reasons:

* the person listed as contact (Stephane C.), is the m68hc11/12 target's maintainer of the FSF toolchain.
* Almost all packages referenced on this page are _way_ outdated.

May-be you should contact him before proceeding with this package.
Comment 8 Brennan Ashton 2008-12-13 11:38:23 EST
Yes, I have seen people using the 4.3 gcc, so I am working on building that right now.  I will do some tests on actual hardware to verify.  That other project has gone though states of being maintained and not it looks like, and many of the important links are broken.

Right now I am having issues with getting gcc to compile, there has been some change in the Fedora gcc, and it has broken even the "good" avr-gcc package building.
Comment 9 Jason Tibbitts 2009-07-14 18:21:08 EDT
Well, it's been eight months; has there been any progress?
Comment 10 Jason Tibbitts 2009-11-07 20:28:41 EST
Given nearly four months of silence, I'm going to assume that's a big no and close this out.