From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Dumaresq Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:43:15 -0400 Subject: [Buildroot] Hiding non-buildable packages References: <1187728137.6145.48.camel@86-115-11-152><20070822191320.GU11697@aon.at> <1187814296.4321.37.camel@86-115-11-28> Message-ID: <002801c7e4fd$109b9900$6e00a8c0@JONATHAN> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi, I juste want to tell you that i will need to use both arch. ARM9 (RM9200) and AVR32 (NGW100). So i probably try both setup. For the AVR32 should be easier for me to try it. For the RM9200 it's a custom board based on the RM9200-EK or DK i don't remember. SO this one should be not soon before i can get my board up and running. Jonathan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ulf Samuelsson" To: "Bernhard Fischer" Cc: "Buildroot" Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 4:24 PM Subject: Re: [Buildroot] Hiding non-buildable packages > ons 2007-08-22 klockan 21:13 +0200 skrev Bernhard Fischer: >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 10:28:57PM +0200, Ulf Samuelsson wrote: >> >A lot of the packages does not build. >> >> Fixing them is the right thing to do. > > Yes, the goal is to have all packages working for all architectures. > We are not there by far. > >> >> >Some only build for some targets. >> >> Certain packages (think specific HW support) should depend on a specific >> arch. Which are these? > > I do not have this list. > >> >I think it would be nice to have the possibility >> >to set a config item, which resulted in that only >> >packages which seems to build are really visible. >> >> I object to this if you just want to avoid helping to provide patches to >> upstream that do fix the respective packages that are ment to work fine. > > No. > Do you think I have been too passive submitting patches during the last > 2 months :-) > > I see this as a help to quickly determine what I can do and cannot do > at a certain point of time. The goal is to remove the restrictions. > > I am mostly interested in ARM and AVR32. > There are a lot of packages, which needs an active porting effort to > build on the AVR32, since those packages explicitly state which > architectures are supported, and the AVR32 might not be listed. > It would be very good if people would know up front what can be done at > the moment. > > On the ARM, the problem is different. > Packages, not involving direct access to architecure specific H/W > (mostly PC stuff) should build, but for various reasons they do not. > If people starting using buildroot had this help, then they could > spend their time first building a working filesystem, and then select > a specific, non-working package, to debug. > Today endless hours can be spent on trying to build stuff which ends in > a failure. > If it is known not to build, it is good to communicate this to others. > > > With this fix, it will be easy to grep package/*/Config.in > for a list of non-working packages, and then prioritize > what to work on. > > > > -- > Best Regards, > Ulf Samuelsson > > _______________________________________________ > buildroot mailing list > buildroot at uclibc.org > http://busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot >