[uClibc] Thoughts on buildroot targets

[Erik Andersen]

Currently using buildroot to build software for specific devices
is rather more of a pain that I had planned.  When I first
created the 'target' area, I originally had something in mind
such as adding:

target/devices/
	Generic/
		DevelSystem/
			config.default
			config.linux-2.4.x
			config.linux-2.6.x
			config.uClibc
			config.BusyBox
			target_skel/
				etc/inittab
				etc/password
				etc/network/interfaces
				<lots more stuff to overlay>
		AccessPoint/
			config.default
			config.linux-2.4.x
			config.linux-2.6.x
			config.uClibc
			config.BusyBox
			target_skel/
				etc/inittab
				etc/password
				etc/network/interfaces
		Firewall/
			config.default
			config.linux-2.4.x
			config.linux-2.6.x
			config.uClibc
			config.BusyBox
			target_skel/
				etc/inittab
				etc/password
				etc/network/interfaces
		NAS/
			config.default
			config.linux-2.4.x
			config.linux-2.6.x
			config.uClibc
			config.BusyBox
			target_skel/
				etc/inittab
				etc/password
				etc/network/interfaces
	Atmel/
		AT91/
			config.default
			config.linux-2.4.x
			config.uClibc
			config.BusyBox
			target_skel/
				etc/inittab
				etc/password
	Soekris/
		net4521/
			config.default
			config.linux-2.4.x
			config.uClibc
			target_skel/
				etc/inittab
				etc/init.d/secret_sauce.sh
				etc/password
				etc/network/interfaces

etc, etc, etc, where people could customize things for their
target device and share their configurations, making it easy to
later build for devices with similar feature sets.  My little
wireless access point for instance is a Soekris net4521.  With
current buildroot it is sortof a paint to copy all the needed
files into place, select the correct kernel config, etc.  With
some sortof scheme such as the above, I could easily build for my
net4521 AP without forcing i.e. my kernel config on the whole
world that is not interested in having CONFIG_MELAN=y.

Would implementing such a structure make people happy?  Or should
I just keep things simple and let people use i.e. openembedded
when they want something more complex?  Thoughts anyone?

 -Erik

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