[uClibc] Build uClibc in a different directory from the source tree?

Denis Dowling dpd at alphalink.com.au
Thu Dec 18 04:41:24 UTC 2003


Hi Carl,

I consider this a useful feature as well. At the moment I am using a link
farm to build uClibc in a seperate directory but it would be nicer to have
this support directly in the tree. The link farm approach is fairly simple.
I have a script that traverses the source directory tree and when it finds a
directory it creates a directory in the target tree, when it finds a file in
the source tree it creates a symlink from the target tree back to the source
tree.

Regards,
Denis

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carl Miller" <chaz at energoncube.net>
To: <uclibc at uclibc.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 3:08 PM
Subject: [uClibc] Build uClibc in a different directory from the source
tree?


>
> Does anyone have any interest in being able to build uClibc in a separate
> directory tree (i.e. not share source and object files in a single tree)?
> Something like what you can do with packages which use autoconf:
>     ../../source/package-0.1.2/configure
>     make all
>     make install
> where ../../source/package-0.1.2 contains the freshly untarred source
> distribution, and the current directory is bare until configure populates
> it with makefiles and such.
>
> I have a pretty significant need for this capability, both for my own
> project internal reasons, and also because crosstool wants to build that
> way, and we've settled on using crosstool rather than buildroot.  So I
> made it happen.  The patch is attached below.
>
> I expect this may be a rather controversial patch, as a) it's not a bugfix
> but more of a strategic direction change, and b) it touches almost every
> Makefile in the entire uClibc tree.  I'm willing to work with the
> maintainers to address their concerns, and try to turn this into something
> appreciated and incorporated into the main tree.  I expect that may take
> some back-and-forth.  Please let me know what you think of this patch, and
> your specific concerns.
>
> I think there's a fairly significant subset of developers out there who
> want uClibc to have this capability.  Whether you decide this is the way
> to execute it or not is up to you.  I agree it's rather hack-ish, as I
> was trying to solve the problem at hand fully while expending as little
> time and effort as I could get away with.  If you see a cleaner path to
> the desired outcome, I'm all for going your way instead.
>
> Also, please excuse me if you find some configurations in which this does
> not work on the first try.  Due to boss-imposed constraints, I was only
> able to test it with a narrow subset of uClibc configurations.  There are
> likely little gotchas left here and there that never jumped out at me
> because I just didn't explore far enough.  If you find one, let me know,
> and I'll try to address it.  Otherwise, happy relocated uClibc-ing!
>
>
>                           ------Carl
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


_______________________________________________
uClibc mailing list
uClibc at uclibc.org
http://uclibc.org/mailman/listinfo/uclibc





More information about the uClibc mailing list