[Buildroot] [PATCH] pciutils: install static lib with shared
ANDY KENNEDY
ANDY.KENNEDY at adtran.com
Tue Nov 19 23:39:19 UTC 2013
<snip>
> > +define PCIUTILS_DO_SHARED_BUILD
> > + $(TARGET_MAKE_ENV) $(MAKE) CC="$(TARGET_CC)" \
> > + HOST="$(KERNEL_ARCH)-linux" \
> > + OPT="$(TARGET_CFLAGS)" \
> > + LDFLAGS="$(TARGET_LDFLAGS)" \
> > + RANLIB=$(TARGET_RANLIB) \
> > + AR=$(TARGET_AR) \
> > + -C $(PCIUTILS_DIR) \
> > + SHARED=yes \
> > + ZLIB=$(PCIUTILS_ZLIB) \
> > + DNS=$(PCIUTILS_DNS) \
> > + LIBKMOD=$(PCIUTILS_KMOD) \
> > + PREFIX=/usr
>
> This should be refactored so the long list of arguments isn't repeated.
> E.g.
>
Yeah, I had already started that one (with the intent to come back with
a V2 patch). I'm in process right now of getting that a bit cleaner.
<snip>
> >
> > # Ditch install-lib if SHARED is an option in the future
>
> As this comment says, for the static case, install-lib is not necessary
> for the target install.
Right. That is more stuff that I saw after I had done the initial work.
After looking at it more, I wonder if I can refactor the whole file to make
it take advantage of autotools as well. It seems that including something
like PCIUTIL_MAKE_OPTS+=install-lib may be a cleaner design.
>
> Wouldn't the install commands have to be done twice as well for staging?
No, I don't think so. I wonder if it grabs up the two files at the same
time (perhaps with a wildcard of some kind) during the copy. It did pull
both into my staging.
>
>
> Regards,
> Arnout
Thanks for the review. I'll make the changes I've stated above in the
next few days and resubmit.
Andy
More information about the buildroot
mailing list