[gccsdk] Packaging compiler - was Autobuilder libraries

Peter Naulls 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.
Javascript and nspr are also normally built as shared libraries (hence
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 mailing list