fixing bbox build system

Sam Ravnborg sam at ravnborg.org
Wed Oct 4 20:31:30 UTC 2006


Hi Denis.
> 
> I resisted the desire to drop "unneeded" parts of kbuild
> (like support for modules). It simply isn't helpful in
> any way (busybox binary won't shrink because of that),
> but will add difficulties if someone will try to
> apply fixes from kernel's kbuild to bbox's one.

I would much rather see an approach where we in the
kernel abstracted all the core kbuild stuff to a few
generic files which could then be used by the relevant
users.

Most of what you find in the top-level Makefile is rather
kbuild agnostic but there is a few improtant bits.
And you would like to include also the kconfig stuff
i busybox - but the same may be possible there.

So I would suggest a plan in the line of this:
1) I abstract out relevant bits of generic kbuild
   and kconfig support in a few generic files
   in the kernel.
2) We create the necessary bits needed for busybox to use
   the generic kbuild/kconfig stuff.
3) You convince me to keep an eye on/maintaining the kbuild
   parts of busybox.


This would result in:
a) A much simpler build machinery for busybox
b) That hal or whatever other project may have an easier
   time introducing kbuild
c) That it is simpler to maintain due to less kernel stuff

Comments?

	Sam



More information about the busybox mailing list