[Buildroot] Qtopia4 Failure

[Ulf Samuelsson]

mån 2007-09-24 klockan 14:27 +0200 skrev Bernhard Fischer:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 11:34:02AM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 10:12:10AM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> >> 
> >>>I will submit a patch that allows UCLIBC_SUSV3_LEGACY
> >>>to be SED'ed into the uclibc configuration based on
> >>>BR2_UCLIBC_SUSV3_LEGACY (a new makeconfig choice).
> >> 
> >> Please don't. This is way too fine-grained.
> >> That's exactly the reason why we have
> >> $ make uclibc-menuconfig
> >> 
> >> This is easy enough.
> >>
> >
> >I can do that, but then I have to enable UCLIBC_SUSV3_LEGACY as default
> >and not the UCLIBC_SUSV3_LEGACY_MACROS as it is today.
> 
> This is a *sample* config. You are supposed to configure this yourself.
> 

If you know how...
It is not documented anywhere that SUSV3 affects Qtopia.

> This sample config is definately *not* ment to be used without
> configuring it according to your special needs. If you want a libc
> that's easy to use (because it is not configurable), then go use glibc.

> >
> >The current situation is not acceptable.
> 
> It is unacceptable to shield the user from any configuration, especially
> if he did change the default config anyway (since he selected qtopia
> which was not on per default, last time i looked).

Certain packages requires that the library is configured in a certain
way. You want people to find out for themselves what works and what
does not work. This is a timeconsuiming and frustrating exercise.

I am of the opinion, that if someone has figured out how to build
those packages, this needs to formalized by introducing rules in
buildroot, to avoid people wasting time in the future.


> >There needs to be either a dependency on UCLIBC_SUSV3_LEGACY
> >when enabling Qtopia, (and I do not see how that can be accomplished)
> >or the default operation should allow Qtopia to build without problems.
> 
> Whatever. I disabled the LEGACY stuff in the provided *example* config.
> Still, the user is responsible for configuring his desired buildroot
> config as well as his desired uClibc-, busybox- and kernel config.
> 
> If a user is not willing to configure for his needs, he'd be better off
> to either use the default, without changing anything (which will result
> in a very minimal i386 uClibc rootfs) or use some pre-built distro like
> redhat, suse, debian etc are providing.

You live in an x86 universe, a lot of other people (like me) are not.


BR
Ulf Samuelsson