CROSS_COMPILE

[Rob Landley]

On Wednesday 19 July 2006 6:12 pm, Paul Fox wrote:
> rob wrote:
>  > On Monday 17 July 2006 11:27 am, Paul Fox wrote:
>  ...
>  > > but mostly i think that
>  > >     a) the .config.mak file should not be a hidden file, and
>  > 
>  > 1) It shouldn't be a _required_ file, which it isn't.
> 
> i agree it shouldn't be required.
> 
>  > 2) It's named after .config
> 
> why?  it serves a different purpose.  it's a file that the 
> user is expected to edit directly, whereas .config is created
> by a program, and user-edited changes can often be lost.

This is a program created by the users.  I don't really care if it's called 
harvey_the_blue_dinosaur.  However, I'm not interested in shipping an empty 
one.

> sure.  i'm just saying that if it a) weren't hidden,

Since it doesn't exist on most systems, why does the hidden non-hidden status 
matter?  You won't see it if it isn't there.

> and b) pre-existed in the directory structure,

No.

> with some commented lines 
> making it obvious how to do common things, like set a
> cross-compiler, then it would make many users' lives easier.

I set the cross compiler on the command line.  Do I give them a wrapper script 
to show them how to set the cross compiler on the command line?

> look at it another way.  this question is bound to come up again,
> now that cross-compiler option is gone from the menus.

So it needs to be in the FAQ.

We're now doing it the way the linux kernel does it.  The .config.mak is a 
bonus on top of that because there was a request for the feature.  I can 
remove it if it causes too much confusion.

> wouldn't 
> it be nice if the answer was a simple "read and edit config.mak"?

And then we start getting email about "where do I switch on modprobe in 
config.mak?" if it's the only visible config file.  Or "I tried ./config.mak; 
make; make install and it didn't work, how do I avoid reading the FAQ?"

> paul

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.