[gccsdk] Packaging compiler - was Autobuilder libraries
peter at chocky.org
Fri Jan 4 14:56:32 PST 2008
John Tytgat wrote:
> I agree that static linking is the best choice to make for packaging
> GCCSDK 4.1 compiled binaries right now. But put those in 'testing' state.
> And it would indeed also be best to use elf2aif on those binaries which
> will give you an Absolute binary not requiring any ELF loader at runtime.
I will add this to the autobuilder; I still have a number of other broad
changes I'll be making, such as some sanity checking during archive
> IMHO we still need to build up real life experience with shared libraries
> based on the ones found in Autobuilder. I.e. a running FF using shared
> libraries will tell us if we got this stuff right or that it requires some
> more work.
At the very least, Firefox needs shared libraries for certificates to
work. There's no static solution without considerable hacking.
hacks in the build to generated static libraries instead).
> Something slightly else: I'm starting having doubts about uploading the
> packages to RiscPkg site and I'm not sure anymore of the advantages doing
> that instead of making them available ourselves via riscos.info. It feels
> like a possible single point of failure beyond our control.
I would tend to agree. I don't like the idea of lots of repositories
(one of the important points behind "RPM hell"), but I think in practice
the situation under RISC OS will be restrained. At the least, 3 people
right now have access to update any repository on riscos.info, with the
later possible addition of an automated uploader.
More information about the gcc