[Buildroot] [RFC v1] Prototype implementation of per-package out oftree build
sho at relinux.de
Mon Jan 21 18:51:49 UTC 2013
Am 21.01.2013 18:26, schrieb Thomas Petazzoni:
> Dear Przemyslaw Wrzos,
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:24:32 +1100, Przemyslaw Wrzos wrote:
>> This looks fairly similar to what I was proposing so I'm personally
>> all for it. Here are a few of my thoughts about it:
> Yes, indeed it looks similar, but I had already started working on this
> prototype some time ago, and I had the feeling that it was already a
> bit more complete (support in the autotools and cmake infrastructure
> for out of tree build, etc.).
>> * There's one more feature which I think would complete the Linux
>> out-of-tree build support for me, and that is the ability to specify
>> the <PKG>_OVERRIDE_SRCDIR value via the configuration. I've attached
>> a patch for how this might look.
> In general, I am not really favorable. You want it for Linux, but then
> the next guy will want it for Qt, the other guy for X.org server, the
> other guy for OpenSSH, etc. And then we have gazillions of
> configuration options to customize the source directory... while we
> have the much more generic OVERRIDE_SRCDIR mechanism. I really would
> like to avoid the profusion of such configuration options.
> That said, for packages like Linux, U-Boot or Barebox, we already give
> the possibility of building from a custom Git tree or a custom tarball
> location, so we could decide that those packages are "special", and we
> could therefore add the "custom source directory location" option to
> But I really want to put a limit to the type of packages on which we
> add such options, because I don't want to see this being added more or
> less randomly to each and every package in Buildroot.
Once upon a time I thought of such a feature, but I don't think it can
be done in a good way. And since we have the OVERRIDE, I do not see any
need for it. Maybe even some of the special handlings for Linux, U-Boot
and Barebox could be deprecated, but I did not think about this in detail.
Maybe it's worth thinking about extending the OVERRIDE mechanism to
override SOURCE and SITE, too.
>> * I like the idea making the source tree read-only to keep the build
>> honest but I think this removes one of the major benefits of having a
>> source tree in the first place, that is being able to modify and play
>> around with it. This leads to the <pkg>-rebuild not making sense as
>> you point out. I think it might be best to simply not enforce this
>> restriction (even if it means some packages could abuse that).
> Indeed, as I pointed in my introduction e-mail, having the source
> directory read-only has some drawbacks. However, since the source
> directory is shared between the host build and target build of a given
> package, ensuring that the configuration/build steps of the package do
> not mess with the source code is quite important. Otherwise, we could
> see cases of pollution of the host build into the target build or vice
>> * Do we need a source directory when a package doesn't support
>> out-of-tree building? The downside is additional disk space though
>> that might not be that serious of a concern and it might just come
>> down to a choice of aesthetics I suppose.
> The idea with this out-of-tree support is to make the "overriden
> packages" more "normal". So if you add another special case for
> packages that don't support out of tree build, the entire goal is a bit
> For example, will you tell users that if they want to do a quick
> and dirty modification of a package source code, they should go in
> $(O)/src/foo-1.0 if foo supports out of tree build or
> $(O)/build/foo-1.0 if foo doesn't? Seems really not logical.
> In general, I have the feeling that the biggest packages use a
> reasonable build system, and therefore are capable of doing out of tree
>> * As far as <pkg>-dirclean goes, I would say remove both build and
>> source directories. If we only remove the build directory it will in
>> effect not be all that different to <pkg>-clean. The only other real
>> option would be to have a separate source directory for each target
> The problem is that if you have a package that gets build for the host
> and the target, you have:
> Then, you do:
> make foo-dirclean
> So, output/src/foo-1.0 and output/build/foo-1.0 are removed, but
> output/build/host-foo-1.0 remains. So we have the build directory for a
> given package but no longer the corresponding source directory. Doesn't
> seem to be really nice. No?
To me it would seem most natural if output/build/host-foo-1.0 would be
Similar issues might occur with foo-reconfigure and friends. If they
share one source they would both have to be updated in such a case.
> Thanks a lot for your very interesting feedback on this, good to see
> that the discussion is starting!
reLinux - Stephan Hoffmann
Am Schmidtgrund 124 50765 Köln
Tel. +49.221.95595-19 Fax: -64
www.reLinux.de sho at reLinux.de
More information about the buildroot