this is patch to get cross binutils from simple binutils ebuild Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce:
Created attachment 8898 [details, diff] patch from binutils to cross-binutils package name: sys-cross/cross-binutils
tested on: binutils-2.13.90.0.18 and eTARGET: m68k-elf-linux-gnu
I have developed additions to the main binutils ebuild that provides this same functionality. This new ebuild attached here is cross-only by the nature of the pkg_setup function. Please see the documentation at this URL: http://cvs.gentoo.org/~zwelch/ There you will find the binutils version I have developed, along with the crosscompile.eclass that I have started to help us re-use the solutions. Of course, the code is available too, but it's considered unstable. In the meantime, I do not believe either of our ebuilds are quite ready for integration into portage, but this is a problem presently being worked on by myself and numerous others. If you would like to participate in the daily happenings, I strongly recommend joining the #gentoo-arm or #gentoo-embedded irc channels on irc.freenode.net.
Ye, i read it before... But in gentoo isn't any (stable/unstable/working/unwoking/....) cross compiler. I try to add some one. Now i working on first stage of gcc. Then i submit glibc and resumit gcc again for full gcc patch. If some on wants cross compiler. Why we must hide it from him?
We are not hiding this; however, neither yours nor my ebuilds provide the complete means for installing a full toolchain. Until something can be checked in that allows for a full toolchain to be built in one step, I personally am opposed to any support for cross-compiling to be committed. Further, I am also strongly against adding anything other than changes to the main ebuilds to support cross-compiling; we *cannot* allow a proliferation of cross-compile-only ebuilds. That is poor engineering. In addition, there must be some safeguards to protect users from emerging (for example) a cross-glibc over their main system's glibc. That is *much* too easy to do right now. Cross-compiling is very tricky stuff, and portage needs to be taught some basic precautions. Finally, I do not think we should expose our users to our work in progress. These are system compilers after all - bugs here would cause us untold pain and suffering - even if the ebuilds were kept portage.mask'd. Once we are *much* closer to the finish line, I am all for integrating this into the tree, but it's still much too experimental. Too much risk.
It's not a hide thing, its an in development thing, that honestly.. if we give it to the masses before it 'works' _WILL_ result in ton of users breaking their systems. Time and time gain has proven this. Also portage is honestly not totally ready for this yet, there are some logistics to work out on it, and with this type of a big move it is best done well planned and not have to go in and change things multiple times. I hope you can appreciate that and urge you to help us out with this stuff. Doing it in a seperate environment at least initially is very important here IMO, things need to be done right the first time on these sorts of efforts or it can be disastourous. Roma: would you be interested in helping the effort?
:) if we write safe ebuild == (files goes in correct places without overwriteing system library and has normal dependecies, then user must do big work to break system, durink this work, maybe he thitnk thet he doing some wrong? :) Yes i wanna help, I want cross in gentoo.
btw my idee of this patch is that whis patch ca be used almost whit any binutils version :)
Right, I am with Zach and Mark. Why dont you two have a talk (Zach and Roma) and try to combine ideas ?
We have started the push to commit a unified set of cross-toolchain ebuilds. These are now being tracked in bugs 18031-18034, as we managed to overlook this bug report before now. There is still much to do, but we're starting to mash it into coherent chunks of working functionality. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18032 ***
