[uClibc] A "vendor" top-level buildroot directory?
Thomas Cameron
tom at drdabbles.us
Fri Jan 14 01:10:18 UTC 2005
On Thursday 13 January 2005 05:26 pm, George Joseph wrote:
> Thank you Mike. I have read the documentation and know how to customize
> packages. I guess my point was that maybe that's not such a good idea for
> things that might have a limited audience. Keeping the package directory
> for stock items and using a separate directory for vendor/local stuff would
> seem a better way to organize the code. You know you can always replace
> the package directory from the latest distribution without affecting any
> custom stuff you have. Wouldn't that be a good thing? It is to me.
>
A symlink would keep you from inadvertently replacing the directory...kinda. I
typically have my specific things in a different directory
structure...especially when I am planning on updating my buildroot tree.
Buildroot isn't static enough to keep anything important in there, and I find
that I will often completely blow away a tree, and replace it. Just my $.02,
though.
--
Tom Cameron
tom<at>drdabbles<dot>us
More information about the uClibc
mailing list