From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 08:24:47 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [RFC] [PATCH 0/5] Buildroot cleanup In-Reply-To: <87vdjt160i.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> References: <4AA62DD20200000D00128C56@gwia.alliedtelesyn.co.nz> <4AA75F310200007000017827@gwia.alliedtelesyn.co.nz> <4AA75F310200007000017827@gwia.alliedtelesyn.co.nz> <1252440948.19600.4.camel@bender> <87vdjt160i.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> Message-ID: <20090909082447.7a230c8f@surf> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Le Tue, 08 Sep 2009 23:27:41 +0200, Peter Korsgaard a ?crit : > I have been thinking about it myself. *REALLY* supporting toolchains > for all the different architectures / variants, uclibc and (e)glibc > and following up on compiler bugs takes quite some effort (and noone > seems willing to do it for buildroot), so maybe the best long term > solution is simply to deprecate the toolchain building stuff and just > recommend crosstool-ng instead? That was my plan... > This would make BR less selfcontained / one-stop-shop though. until I met Buildroot users (I mean not end-users but organizations using Buildroot as the build system they ship with their devices) who told me that the selfcontained nature of BR was something they really liked. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com