First of all, you are supposed to be releasing good source code as well as binaries, and if cross compilation is so broken, you are supposed to fix it.
Citation is needed really badly. I see no such requirements in GPLv2, GPLv3 or any other sane license. And I, for one, just flat our refuse to spend my time doing useless work. Sometimes cross-compilation makes sense (for example if I build package for Arduino), but often it's just easier to use native build.
Again, simply build packages in a full ARM system (either native or running on x86 with qemu-arm), and then replace gcc, as and ld either with a distcc (or other remote) client, or if running in qemu, with native cross-compilers.
This may break native compilation instead. Sometimes it's not a big deal (for example some ARM-packages here can not be build on ARM because linker needs >4GB of address space), but presumably they want to keep this possibility - and then it must be tested.
The idea of running a compile farm on an embedded architecture like ARM is just insane and idiotic.
Sure. As long as ARM remains “an embedded architecture”. But in this case it makes little sense to promote it to “primary architecture” status. The whole tempest started as admission that ARM is no longer just an embedded architecture. Well, if that's true then it should be capable enough to build itself.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds