[Buildroot] Explicit dependencies on uclibc in makefiles

[Buildroot] Explicit dependencies on uclibc in makefiles

[Will Newton]

Hi all,

A number of packages in buildroot express explicit dependencies on
uclibc in their makefiles, e.g.:

 MYPACKAGE_DEPENDENCIES = uclibc

Is this really necessary?

[Buildroot] Explicit dependencies on uclibc in makefiles

[Thiago A. Corrêa]

Hi Will,

   The dependencies in Makefiles are what make uses to figure out the
build order. All but the most trivial programs will require the libc,
thus the uclibc dependency.
   In your packages, you could just depend on the libraries you
require, as those will likely depend on uclibc.

   Without the proper dependencies, the build order in one case or
another could be switched and when your package is compiled, the
dependencies are not yet available.

Kind Regards,
    Thiago A. Correa


On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Will Newton<will.newton@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> A number of packages in buildroot express explicit dependencies on
> uclibc in their makefiles, e.g.:
>
> ?MYPACKAGE_DEPENDENCIES = uclibc
>
> Is this really necessary?
> _______________________________________________
> buildroot mailing list
> buildroot at busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
>

[Buildroot] Explicit dependencies on uclibc in makefiles

[Will Newton]

2009/8/13 Thiago A. Corr?a <thiago.correa@gmail.com>:
> Hi Will,
>
> ? The dependencies in Makefiles are what make uses to figure out the
> build order. All but the most trivial programs will require the libc,
> thus the uclibc dependency.
> ? In your packages, you could just depend on the libraries you
> require, as those will likely depend on uclibc.
>
> ? Without the proper dependencies, the build order in one case or
> another could be switched and when your package is compiled, the
> dependencies are not yet available.

Sorry, perhaps I didn't explain myself very well. My point was - can
we guarantee that uclibc has already been built by the time we are
builidng a package? If so the explicit dependency is not needed. Many
packages already do not depend on uclibc so I suspect that we can drop
any explicit dependency on uclibc.

An example:

# grep uclibc package/grep/grep.mk
# grep uclibc package/bash/bash.mk
bash: ncurses uclibc busybox $(TARGET_DIR)/$(BASH_TARGET_BINARY)
bash: ncurses uclibc $(TARGET_DIR)/$(BASH_TARGET_BINARY)

Why does bash depend on uclibc but grep doesn't? Does grep have a bug
or can we remove the unneeded dependency from bash?

[Buildroot] Explicit dependencies on uclibc in makefiles

[Hans-Christian Egtvedt]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:19:48 +0100
Will Newton <will.newton@gmail.com> wrote:

<snipp>

> Why does bash depend on uclibc but grep doesn't? Does grep have a bug
> or can we remove the unneeded dependency from bash?
>

IIRC uclibc is earlier in the dependency loop anyway, uclibc is in the
BASE_TARGETS list. See top level Makefile.


-- 
Best regards,
Hans-Christian Egtvedt

[Buildroot] Explicit dependencies on uclibc in makefiles

[Thiago A. Corrêa]

2009/8/13 Hans-Christian Egtvedt <hans-christian.egtvedt@atmel.com>:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:19:48 +0100
> Will Newton <will.newton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snipp>
>
>> Why does bash depend on uclibc but grep doesn't? Does grep have a bug
>> or can we remove the unneeded dependency from bash?
>>
>
> IIRC uclibc is earlier in the dependency loop anyway, uclibc is in the
> BASE_TARGETS list. See top level Makefile.
>

Ah, ok. I never looked it up at the top Makefile. Well, then I guess
we could drop uclibc from all packages/*
This actually should be done for the glibc support to work properly I guess.

Kind Regards,
   Thiago A. Correa

[Buildroot] Explicit dependencies on uclibc in makefiles

[Thomas Petazzoni]

Le Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:43:27 -0300,
Thiago A. Corr?a <thiago.correa@gmail.com> a ?crit :

> Ah, ok. I never looked it up at the top Makefile. Well, then I guess
> we could drop uclibc from all packages/*

I'll have a closer look at this, but I think yes.

> This actually should be done for the glibc support to work properly I
> guess.

Depends whether you're talking about glibc support in toolchains
generated by Buildroot, or glibc support for external toolchains,
generated with external tools (crosstool-ng, etc.) or downloaded from
third parties (Codesourcery, vendor, etc.). The former is not supported
by Buildroot at this time. The latter is supported, and the
toolchain/external-toolchain/ext-tool.mk implements a uclibc: target,
regardless of whether the C library of the external toolchain is uclibc
or glibc.

Sincerly,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons
Kernel, drivers and embedded Linux development,
consulting, training and support.
http://free-electrons.com

[Buildroot] Explicit dependencies on uclibc in makefiles

[Bernhard Reutner-Fischer]

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 11:43:27AM -0300, Thiago A. Corr?a wrote:
>2009/8/13 Hans-Christian Egtvedt <hans-christian.egtvedt@atmel.com>:
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:19:48 +0100
>> Will Newton <will.newton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snipp>
>>
>>> Why does bash depend on uclibc but grep doesn't? Does grep have a bug
>>> or can we remove the unneeded dependency from bash?
>>>
>>
>> IIRC uclibc is earlier in the dependency loop anyway, uclibc is in the
>> BASE_TARGETS list. See top level Makefile.
>>
>
>Ah, ok. I never looked it up at the top Makefile. Well, then I guess
>we could drop uclibc from all packages/*

indeed.

>This actually should be done for the glibc support to work properly I guess.

http://repo.or.cz/w/buildroot.git?a=commit;h=7a1e0eccede82028e176ee4671fe79b1a34c0779
http://repo.or.cz/w/buildroot.git?a=commit;h=567d5c24536c8462b6df24f6c7654a72b00f202d
http://repo.or.cz/w/buildroot.git?a=commit;h=ab606461d9033d8dca2dd698751308d9aa0c528f
http://repo.or.cz/w/buildroot.git?a=commit;h=31cb73c8370d65a2fde86415de59369dc433b02d

and related commits.

As previously stated, i invite anybody to bring your tree up to snuff