CROSS_DIR

CROSS_DIR

[Lorn Potter]

Was CROSS_DIR changed somewhat recently (last 2 months or so) to link 
the includes and lib dirs to staging?

If so, why? This means I cannot distribute this toolchain to other 
machines, and makes the entries in the pkgconfig files wrong.

CROSS_DIR should mean just that - this is where I want the toolchain to 
be - like it used to do.

Re: CROSS_DIR

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:50 +1000, Lorn Potter wrote:
> Was CROSS_DIR changed somewhat recently (last 2 months or so) to link 
> the includes and lib dirs to staging?
> 
> If so, why? This means I cannot distribute this toolchain to other 
> machines, and makes the entries in the pkgconfig files wrong.

It was changed, yes. The reason was to remove duplication of files
between staging and cross. There are various reasons for doing that
including faster builds, less error prone builds (file duplication means
both copies have to be kept the same) and that cleaning this up assists
some future planned developments (e.g. sysroot and packaged staging).

The symlink is intended as a transition fix and ultimately we can switch
to the sysroot option of the toolchain for everything but gcc 3.3 and
earlier. Poky already has done so and it is *much* cleaner.

I have seen the pkgconfig problem and its unfortunate, I didn't realise
until it was too late. Its not more wrong than pointing at staging
really though. The good news is that it goes away entirely when we
switch to using sysroot options for pkgconfig.

> CROSS_DIR should mean just that - this is where I want the toolchain to 
> be - like it used to do.

Well, the cross toolchain components are still there. The target system
header/libraries (glibc and libc-headers-linux) only get installed to
the target system staging directory now though.

CROSS_DIR is not meant to be a toolchain you can transfer between
machines, its meant to be the cross components of the builds. If you
want a toolchain to transfer between machines you can build one with
meta-toolchain.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: CROSS_DIR

[Lorn Potter]

Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:50 +1000, Lorn Potter wrote:
>> Was CROSS_DIR changed somewhat recently (last 2 months or so) to link 
>> the includes and lib dirs to staging?
>>
>> If so, why? This means I cannot distribute this toolchain to other 
>> machines, and makes the entries in the pkgconfig files wrong.
> 
> It was changed, yes. The reason was to remove duplication of files
> between staging and cross. There are various reasons for doing that
> including faster builds, less error prone builds (file duplication means
> both copies have to be kept the same) and that cleaning this up assists
> some future planned developments (e.g. sysroot and packaged staging).
> 
> The symlink is intended as a transition fix and ultimately we can switch
> to the sysroot option of the toolchain for everything but gcc 3.3 and
> earlier. Poky already has done so and it is *much* cleaner.
> 
> I have seen the pkgconfig problem and its unfortunate, I didn't realise
> until it was too late. Its not more wrong than pointing at staging
> really though. The good news is that it goes away entirely when we
> switch to using sysroot options for pkgconfig.

If CROSS_DIR is simply a symlink to staging, whats the point? I see no 
point in setting this if it doesn't work as it used to, and put the 
toolchain somewhere else, otherwise it's redundant and pointless.


> 
>> CROSS_DIR should mean just that - this is where I want the toolchain to 
>> be - like it used to do.
> 
> Well, the cross toolchain components are still there. The target system
> header/libraries (glibc and libc-headers-linux) only get installed to
> the target system staging directory now though.
> 
> CROSS_DIR is not meant to be a toolchain you can transfer between
> machines, its meant to be the cross components of the builds. If you
> want a toolchain to transfer between machines you can build one with
> meta-toolchain.

You guys must like doing things the hard way. As per the old method, 
CROSS_DIR can be used as a distributable toolchain. Now, _everything_ 
and their sister are there, which is not what a toolchain should be.

What is the path to whatever meta-toolchain creates? is it CROSS_DIR? or 
somewhere in the build directory? which could very easily be in 
someone's home directory, and not redistributable. Is there an good way 
to set the path to it?



-- 
Lorn 'ljp' Potter
Software Engineer, Systems Group, MES, Trolltech

Re: CROSS_DIR

[Richard Purdie]

On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 06:13 +1000, Lorn Potter wrote:
> Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:50 +1000, Lorn Potter wrote:
> >> Was CROSS_DIR changed somewhat recently (last 2 months or so) to link 
> >> the includes and lib dirs to staging?
> >>
> >> If so, why? This means I cannot distribute this toolchain to other 
> >> machines, and makes the entries in the pkgconfig files wrong.
> > 
> > It was changed, yes. The reason was to remove duplication of files
> > between staging and cross. There are various reasons for doing that
> > including faster builds, less error prone builds (file duplication means
> > both copies have to be kept the same) and that cleaning this up assists
> > some future planned developments (e.g. sysroot and packaged staging).
> > 
> > The symlink is intended as a transition fix and ultimately we can switch
> > to the sysroot option of the toolchain for everything but gcc 3.3 and
> > earlier. Poky already has done so and it is *much* cleaner.
> > 
> > I have seen the pkgconfig problem and its unfortunate, I didn't realise
> > until it was too late. Its not more wrong than pointing at staging
> > really though. The good news is that it goes away entirely when we
> > switch to using sysroot options for pkgconfig.
> 
> If CROSS_DIR is simply a symlink to staging, whats the point? 

I'm confused, where above do I suggest "CROSS_DIR is simply a symlink to
staging"?

I don't since as you say that would be pointless.

> >> CROSS_DIR should mean just that - this is where I want the toolchain to 
> >> be - like it used to do.
> > 
> > Well, the cross toolchain components are still there. The target system
> > header/libraries (glibc and libc-headers-linux) only get installed to
> > the target system staging directory now though.
> > 
> > CROSS_DIR is not meant to be a toolchain you can transfer between
> > machines, its meant to be the cross components of the builds. If you
> > want a toolchain to transfer between machines you can build one with
> > meta-toolchain.
> 
> You guys must like doing things the hard way. As per the old method, 
> CROSS_DIR can be used as a distributable toolchain. Now, _everything_ 
> and their sister are there, which is not what a toolchain should be.

No, now only the cross tools are there and the target libraries/headers
are in staging instead of both staging and cross. Currently there is a
symlink between the two. This symlink will be disappearing soon.

> What is the path to whatever meta-toolchain creates? is it CROSS_DIR? or 
> somewhere in the build directory? which could very easily be in 
> someone's home directory, and not redistributable. Is there an good way 
> to set the path to it?

The path to the toolchain is whatever you define it to be with
SDK_PREFIX. As you say, people build in their homedirs which is a good
reason to support meta-toolchain over moving CROSS_DIR around.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: CROSS_DIR

[Rodrigo Vivi]

Hi RP,

I've noticed that meta-toolchain is so dependent on ipgk.
Is there any other good (right) way to build a relocatable toolchain?

Regards,
vivijim

On Nov 28, 2007 10:45 PM, Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 06:13 +1000, Lorn Potter wrote:
> > Richard Purdie wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 14:50 +1000, Lorn Potter wrote:
> > >> Was CROSS_DIR changed somewhat recently (last 2 months or so) to link
> > >> the includes and lib dirs to staging?
> > >>
> > >> If so, why? This means I cannot distribute this toolchain to other
> > >> machines, and makes the entries in the pkgconfig files wrong.
> > >
> > > It was changed, yes. The reason was to remove duplication of files
> > > between staging and cross. There are various reasons for doing that
> > > including faster builds, less error prone builds (file duplication
> means
> > > both copies have to be kept the same) and that cleaning this up
> assists
> > > some future planned developments (e.g. sysroot and packaged staging).
> > >
> > > The symlink is intended as a transition fix and ultimately we can
> switch
> > > to the sysroot option of the toolchain for everything but gcc 3.3 and
> > > earlier. Poky already has done so and it is *much* cleaner.
> > >
> > > I have seen the pkgconfig problem and its unfortunate, I didn't
> realise
> > > until it was too late. Its not more wrong than pointing at staging
> > > really though. The good news is that it goes away entirely when we
> > > switch to using sysroot options for pkgconfig.
> >
> > If CROSS_DIR is simply a symlink to staging, whats the point?
>
> I'm confused, where above do I suggest "CROSS_DIR is simply a symlink to
> staging"?
>
> I don't since as you say that would be pointless.
>
> > >> CROSS_DIR should mean just that - this is where I want the toolchain
> to
> > >> be - like it used to do.
> > >
> > > Well, the cross toolchain components are still there. The target
> system
> > > header/libraries (glibc and libc-headers-linux) only get installed to
> > > the target system staging directory now though.
> > >
> > > CROSS_DIR is not meant to be a toolchain you can transfer between
> > > machines, its meant to be the cross components of the builds. If you
> > > want a toolchain to transfer between machines you can build one with
> > > meta-toolchain.
> >
> > You guys must like doing things the hard way. As per the old method,
> > CROSS_DIR can be used as a distributable toolchain. Now, _everything_
> > and their sister are there, which is not what a toolchain should be.
>
> No, now only the cross tools are there and the target libraries/headers
> are in staging instead of both staging and cross. Currently there is a
> symlink between the two. This symlink will be disappearing soon.
>
> > What is the path to whatever meta-toolchain creates? is it CROSS_DIR? or
> > somewhere in the build directory? which could very easily be in
> > someone's home directory, and not redistributable. Is there an good way
> > to set the path to it?
>
> The path to the toolchain is whatever you define it to be with
> SDK_PREFIX. As you say, people build in their homedirs which is a good
> reason to support meta-toolchain over moving CROSS_DIR around.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>



-- 
Rodrigo Vivi
INdT - Instituto Nokia de Tecnologia
Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br
GPG: 0x905BE242 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net

Re: CROSS_DIR

[Richard Purdie]

Hi,

On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 17:03 -0300, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> I've noticed that meta-toolchain is so dependent on ipgk.
> Is there any other good (right) way to build a relocatable toolchain?

You can enable both debs and ipks at the same time (the first class used
is the default for the rootfs generation). That should get
meta-toolchain working even though you're using debs as the primary
package. In future I'd like to see if work with debs too, its just a
question of abstracting the right functions to the package classes...

Cheers,

Richard