From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 08:36:46 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] Various problem using buildroot-2012.05 In-Reply-To: <50A03D29.7070608@petroprogram.com> References: <1340005565.16617.YahooMailClassic@web161402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <20120618103657.721db39b@skate> <509E69FD.2000804@petroprogram.com> <50A02B0C.4000107@mind.be> <50A03D29.7070608@petroprogram.com> Message-ID: <20121112083646.2714c2ab@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Stefan, On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 02:04:57 +0200, Stefan Fr?berg wrote: > Another "little" difficult case is Python. > > Even tought Python uses autotools, it (and Perl) will always be the > worst cross-compile > friendly citizens in my book. > Way back, before buildroot, I tried many times to cross-compile it in > Mingw32 environment and it was an > absolute nightmare. With Perl I had even less luck. So far, Python has been relatively manageable and what have a bunch of Python modules that work. > Every time I find an interesting open source project that I would like > to try and cross-compile, > I will make an silent prayer to God's of programmers that the build > system that is revealed from > tarball will be a GNU autoconf script (or even cmake one for God's > sake) and not > some hodge-bodge, custom made, configuration nightmare. I agree that custom made build systems are a pain. However, from my (possibly naive and idealist) perspective, the right solution to these is to fix them rather than workarounding the problem using native compilation on the target. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com