Talk:Cross-compiling tools package guidelines

From ArchWiki

Package Naming

Should the packages contain the entire target in their name? The current naming suggest is not used in the example PKGBUILD. Allan 22:57, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

Out of path executables

Where would these go? binutils buts its biniaries (without the target in their name) in /usr/lib/cross-i686-pc-mingw32/i686-pc-mingw32/bin. It is a bit unwieldy but seems OK... Maybe just use /usr/lib/cross-i686-pc-mingw32/bin (i.e. ${_target}/bin)? Allan 22:59, 15 October 2009 (EDT)

The default location seems to unrememberable. The /usr/lib/cross-${_target}/bin/ is definetely better, but still... What about /usr/bin/cross/${_target} (I know it is a minor difference to /usr/lib but somehow I would expect user executables inside /usr/bin)?

I was not able to reproduce it now, but I think that with some ./configure settings, not all executables have their not-prefixed-counterparts in /usr/lib/cross-i686-pc-mingw32/i686-pc-mingw32/bin so we would need to do some symlinks anyway. --Hotspur 06:31, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

CLFS is Now Out-of-date has been dormant since 2019-04-19 (although there is a little mailing list activity since the final quarter of 2019). Maybe we could link directly to the latest book read page instead? Or the github page?

Perhaps crosstool-ng (github) and buildroot (git source), which are both alive, should be highlighted now? Should these have a separate section with short descriptions and links? These are just suggestions. I don't have experience cross-compiling, at least not for a couple of decades now. I am interested in porting Arch to RISC-V but have the usual time limitations. -- Cmsigler (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)