From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael S. Zick Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 16:06:32 -0500 Subject: [Buildroot] buildroot noob help! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201110151606.35102.minimod@morethan.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On Sat October 15 2011, Bj?rn Forsman wrote: > On 15 October 2011 22:12, Jed Evnull wrote: > > I need to compile packages for arm with uclibc and statically link them. Am > > I selecting the right tool with buildroot? > > I haven't done static linking with Buildroot. Is your reason for wanting static > linking that you will not use the rest of the rootfs Buildroot gives you? > > > I compiled? buildroot-2011.08 > > with qemu_arm_versatile_defconfig.? The generated cross-compiler compiles > > simple hello world programs w/o problems, but fails with typical autoconf > > source packages. > > How did you try to build those packages? You will probably have most success > if you integrate the package in Buildroot. This is done by (typically) > writing two > small files in packages//. See the buildroot docs for the details. > > > I tried to chroot into the generated image (chroot myimage /bin/sh --login) > > to compile from there, but chroot fails with /bin/sh not found. > ??? If your __not__ building on non-ARM, why do you need a cross-compiler? If you __are__ building on non-ARM, how did you expect your host machine to execute the ARM binaries inside of the chroot? Me-thinks you need QEMU or such like to do that. Mike > AFAIK, few people use Buildroot to build a compiler into the rootfs, > so this is not > that well supported. It's better to use Buildroot as a cross-compile system, not > native-compile. > > Best regards, > Bj?rn Forsman > _______________________________________________ > buildroot mailing list > buildroot at busybox.net > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot