Jeff Johnson wrote:

>> >Are EABI and/or NPTL needed for *building*? Sure they are needed
>> >for installing on the target.
>>
>> NPTL is probably a no.  But EABI is a yes.  You can't mix OABI and
>> EABI binaries.  All of the embedded ARM development has moved to EABI
>> binaries.  (As an aside, the purpose of EABI is to allow for a fixed
>> calling convention so that regardless of the optimizations embedded in
>> the binaries, they will still work with each other..  no problems w/
>> hard vs soft float vs "vfp" float.. etc.  OABI had to "change"
>> everytime someone changed the floating point or register sets
>> available to an app!)
>>
> 
> Apologies for my lack of knowledge on ARM.
> 
> So why not sparate OABI and EABI qemu sysimages?
> 
> (the lights come on, EABI doesn't work with qemu)
> 
> OK, so EABI has to be cross-compiled unitil qemu can emulate.
> 
> OABI -> sysimage still seems viable.

My lights must still be off, I don't see why you need qemu to build the
cross packages at all.  It's like I might want to make a PowerPC binary
rpm for some package, but I don't have a PowerPC.  That's okay if I am
using this proposed Cross-Fedoraish thing, I can tell my i386 box to
cross build my Ultrafoo package as a PowerPC binary RPM.  Or if all I
have is a PowerPC, I can make i386 binary rpms of my package.

Where does EABI come into it?  That you need a crosscompiled EABI uclibc
lib on the target to link to?  Well that's easily done without needing
any emulation on the build host.

Am I missing the point somewhere?

-Andy