Bug 509798
Summary: | Review Request: armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi-binutils - A GNU collection of binary utilities | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | 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: | rawhide | CC: | adam, bjohnson, fedora-package-review, herrold, notting, richmattes | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2011-07-25 06:26:39 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
Embargoed: | |||||||
Bug Depends On: | |||||||
Bug Blocks: | 201449, 245418 | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Peter Lemenkov
2009-07-06 09:49:40 UTC
Any reason the name is so terribly long? We already have msp430-binutils, spu-binutils and mingw32-* which seems to give precedence to armv5ejl-binutils, unless you expect to actually need to package binutils for some OS other than linux or some particular variant other than "unknown". Why "armv5tejl-unknown-linux-gnueabi"? I think the ARM SIG is using "armv5tel-redhat-linux-gnueabi". (In reply to comment #1) > Any reason the name is so terribly long? We already have msp430-binutils, > spu-binutils and mingw32-* which seems to give precedence to armv5ejl-binutils, > unless you expect to actually need to package binutils for some OS other than > linux or some particular variant other than "unknown". I'm afraid that these cross-tools are named wrong (except mingw, which is different). Cross-toolchain should inform potential user about processor architecture it designed for (armv5tejl), target (linux) and binary format (GNU EABI). I think, that only "unknown" part may be omitted, but I feel that it's better to rename it to something like "fedora" (not "redhat", as Adam suggested). For example, if someone will develop bootloaders for arm-platforms, then he should obtain two different cross-toolchains. One - for developing Linux kernel and user-space applications (which is exactly what I submitted) and another - for developing "bare-metal" applications, such as bootloaders. See these links for the details: http://www.codesourcery.com/sgpp/lite/arm/portal/release830?@template=datasheet http://www.codesourcery.com/sgpp/lite/arm/portal/release858?@template=datasheet That's why we should specify explicitly what exact type of cross-toolchains we're providing. I didn't dig into details yet, but it seems that conventional gcc tries to link by default with libraries and routines, which cannot be used at the boot-stage (for example, in my case, it tries to link with code for trapping division by zero). I would like to remind you, that I'm still not an authoritative person in developing for ARM, so I can be wrong in some particular details. (In reply to comment #2) > Why "armv5tejl-unknown-linux-gnueabi"? I think the ARM SIG is using > "armv5tel-redhat-linux-gnueabi". Yes, naming scheme is wrong. However, I think that proper scheme will be armv5tel-fedora-linux-gnueabi Just changed names: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/armv5tel-fedora-linux-gnueabi-binutils.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/armv5tel-fedora-linux-gnueabi-binutils-2.19.51.0.11-23.fc11.src.rpm The ARM SIG has chosen armv5tel-redhat-linux-gnueabi, you should probably stay consistent with them and ask them to change it if you think it is incorrect. I'm afraid, that you're wrong - no naming scheme was chosed so far (at least they didn't do it in open manner). Moreover, I suspect that using name "redhat" is not suitable. First - it's a trademark, second - we are building Fedora, not the RHEL. Actually, maybe is it better to change this part to something neutral? I did some checks - here are valid gcc naming schemes: i686-pc-linux-gnu (gcc for F-10, i386) powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu (gcc for F-11, ppc) x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu (gcc for x86_64, CentOS 5) armv5tejl-unknown-linux-gnueabi (F-10 for ARM on my arm-machine) On the other hand, if we'll add branches for EPEL, then my naming scheme (armv5tel-redhat-linux-gnueabi) will be improper. I'll ask in mail-lists. Yes I agree that "redhat" probably shouldn't be in there. I am curious to see what comes of mailing to the list. Ok, after some googling, I suspect that the only proper way is to use "unknown" as vendor field, since it definitely shows, that our cross-toolchain intended for wide use and not locked to some particular hardware. See also these links: http://www.mail-archive.com/autoconf@gnu.org/msg00969.html http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/embedded/handbook/?part=1&chap=3 Here is a brief answer for my question from Ralf Corsepius: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.arm/191/focus=117221 Here are the previous Fedora-related discussions about cross-compiling in general: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/41315 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/56709 Ok, renamed back and updated to the latest "main" binutils: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi-binutils.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi-binutils-2.19.51.0.14-30.fc11.src.rpm Koji scratchbuild (in progress, atm): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1550270 Sync with the latest binutils from F-12. http://peter.fedorapeople.org/armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi-binutils.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi-binutils-2.19.51.0.14-35.fc12.src.rpm This fails to build for me: config.status: creating Makefile + --with-sysroot=/usr/armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi/sys-root --program-prefix=armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi- --disable-shared --disable-werror --with-bugurl=http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/ /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.06Q1VG: line 78: --with-sysroot=/usr/armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi/sys-root: No such file or directory That seems to be missing a command there. I do not think you can split the argument list for the configure script with conditionals in the middle in the way you're trying to do it. Failing scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2573784 Also, have you contacted the ARM secondary arch folks about this? (You may be working with them; I can't really tell.) Some input from them might be useful. Please clear the Whiteboard if providing a version which builds. The specfile in the SRPM has the --enable-targets=%{_host} line commented out, which is causing the build to fail. I don't know if it's supposed to be enabled or not, but the package builds without the # and without the entire line. There's some recent interest on the ARM mailing list for getting a cross-compiler working[1]. Included are patches for the latest rawhide binutils and gcc, I don't know if they're helpful for you. I think it would be worth starting a discussion over on the ARM list about naming conventions for cross tools. Personally, I think the cross tools should follow the conventions that the native tools use (it looks like they're all using %{_target_platform}, which evaluates to i686-redhat-linux-gnu on fedora 13) [1]http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/arm/2010-November/000727.html Created attachment 482436 [details] extend CARGS with %if-%else instead of putting it as args to %configure directly With this patch for the spec-file, the binutils compile on a local Fedora-14.x86_64. Started a scratch-build with an updated src.rpm: Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2887014 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 2887014 build (dist-f14, armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi-binutils-2.19.51.0.14-35.fc14.src.rpm): open (x86-04.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 2887016 buildArch (armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi-binutils-2.19.51.0.14-35.fc14.src.rpm, i686): open (x86-13.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 2887015 buildArch (armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi-binutils-2.19.51.0.14-35.fc14.src.rpm, x86_64): open (x86-18.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 2887016 buildArch (armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi-binutils-2.19.51.0.14-35.fc14.src.rpm, i686): open (x86-13.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 2 open 1 done 0 failed 2887015 buildArch (armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi-binutils-2.19.51.0.14-35.fc14.src.rpm, x86_64): open (x86-18.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 2 done 0 failed 2887014 build (dist-f14, armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi-binutils-2.19.51.0.14-35.fc14.src.rpm): open (x86-04.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 0 open 3 done 0 failed 2887014 build (dist-f14, armv5tel-unknown-linux-gnueabi-binutils-2.19.51.0.14-35.fc14.src.rpm) completed successfully I'm no longer interested in maintaining this. Sorry. |