[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