Subject: Re: Using Py_SetPythonHome
Date: Thursday 4th October 2012 07:32:50 UTC (over 4 years ago)
Package management is a sinkhole, unfortunately. The OLPC project has unfortunately discovered that despite the great support in the GNU tools for cross-compilation, the Fedora package management tools are completely incapable of cross-compilation. So now that they are making hardware with three architectures to build software for (i386, i686, and ARM), they need to dedicate three kinds of hardware to building their Fedora-based releases. They can't make an OS image on a fast x86 machine that will install or boot on an ARM.(*) (I think Debian/Ubuntu package managers suffer from the same problem; they all assume they're running "native", they run package-specific shell scripts that think they're running in the target environment, etc.) I recommend NOT assuming that package managers are the cat's pajamas and that therefore we can all skip the ability to usefully build from source. Having seen this Py_SetPythonHome discussion drag on for what seems months (I think it's the most frequent subject line in the mailing list), and yet I still don't understand why y'all care, perhaps someone should try to write up a solid proposal that explains what the hell is going on, with pros and cons listed and generally agreed upon. That might help point a path to making a decision that sticks for a while. John (*): They can run builds under QEMU on x86, emulating the ARM instruction set, using a set of native ARM compilers and a full ARM GNU/Linux virtual machine, and make the ARM builds that way. Indeed they do -- it's only a 2- to 3-times slowdown, which is far easier than rewriting the package management subsystem for cross-compilation and then getting the changes adopted "upstream" into Fedora. And far, far easier than building fast hardware based on an available ARM chip.