[uClibc] Buildroot package placement policy/style question...
Rob Landley
rob at landley.net
Wed Jan 19 05:10:40 UTC 2005
On Tuesday 18 January 2005 07:07 pm, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 12:14:02PM -0700, George Joseph wrote:
> > How should packages that are run on both the build host and target host
> > be handled? I'm thinking about packages like mtd where you need
> > mkfs.jffs2 to run on the build host to create a fs, but also want the
> > same set of tools compiled to run on the target host.
> >
> > Right now, cramfs, genext2fs, mtd and squashfs all get built in the
> > build_(armeb in my case) directory even though they're compiled to run
> > on the local host. Maybe they should be moved to
> > toolchain/toolchain_build? This way you could have versions compiled for
> > the target in build_ where they belong without conflicting with the
> > versions needed for the build process.
>
> Some packages, such as sed, are built for both the host and
> the target. Such packages live under buildroot/package/
> as you propose.
Just thought I'd point out again that busybox sed should be able to do
everything you need, so you don't need to build the seperate sed package.
For a while now, I've had a "should probably do" item (not quite a to do) of
making buildroot work like my firmware linux project, and build its system
using the busybox tools instead of the gnu tools. (Or at least have this as
an option.) Unfortunately, I really really dislike messing with makefiles
(declarative or imperative: pick one already), and buildroot is a big nested
mess of make files...
P.S. If buildroot can't rebuild under itself, it's not done yet.
Rob
More information about the uClibc
mailing list