[Buildroot] [PATCH] libtool: Make libltdl a separate package
alexander.sverdlin at gmail.com
Thu Nov 22 19:02:33 UTC 2018
Hello Yann, Arnout, Thomas,
On 12/11/2018 09:06, Yann E. MORIN wrote:
> On 2018-11-11 23:15 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly:
>> On 11/11/2018 22:17, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 16:06:46 +0100, Alexander Sverdlin wrote:
>>>> This will save megabytes on the target filesystem if target packages only
>>>> require libltdl part of libtool.
>>> In fact, I don't think we need the full libtool on the target at all,
>>> so perhaps we should just change the existing libtool package in its
>>> target variant to only install libltdl ?
>> I agree. If anybody needs the rest of libtool, then we can add an option like
>> BR2_PACKAGE_LIBTOOL_FULL or _TOOLS or something like that,
>> similar to e.g.
>> libcurl (where BTW curl was originally a separate package but we merged it).
> Exceot that, because of that legacy, curl is a bad example, as the
> option is badly named.
> A better exaple would be libcap (_TOOLS) or gnutls (_UTILS).
> I would favour the _TOOLS suffix, even though we have both in tree.
But it seems that HOST_LIBTOOL package is widely used and it would look awkward
for me if we would build completely different stuff for LIBTOOL and HOST_LIBTOOL
I'd rather go with LIBTOOL_RUNTIME package (or indeed LIBLTDL?), I can merge it into
libtool.mk and make all 4 target packages depend on it instead of full libtool.
What are your thoughts?
More information about the buildroot