[uClibc] Buildroot package placement policy/style question...

George Joseph gtj.member at peakin.com
Wed Jan 19 16:42:44 UTC 2005


Makes sense.

-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Andersen [mailto:andersen at codepoet.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 11:31 PM
To: George Joseph
Cc: uclibc at uclibc.org
Subject: Re: [uClibc] Buildroot package placement policy/style question...


On Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:50:10PM -0700, George Joseph wrote:
> Hmmm.  I didn't realize sed went both ways.
> 
> Seems to be two options then...
> 
> A: Like "sed" ... Common config/make in package with an option to 
> build for build host, target host or both.
> 
> B:  Two completely separate instances.  For the target host, put the 
> config/make in package and build in build_*.  For the build host, put 
> the config/make in target with the other toolchain stuff and build in 
> toolchain_build_*.

I'd rather not have two instances of anything.  For packages that need to swing both ways and are not toolchain components, I'd
rather have a package/foo/ item with Makefile rules for both host and target (i.e. 'foo' and 'foo-host'), and then have any target
specific makefiles depend on 'foo-host'.

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen             http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--




More information about the uClibc mailing list