From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:22:31 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] New kernel source mode [Proposal] In-Reply-To: <772dc0cb-8f56-4bd5-8862-8c95ad4457a5@zimbra2.corp.accelance.fr> References: <20130115085501.52a772cc@skate> <772dc0cb-8f56-4bd5-8862-8c95ad4457a5@zimbra2.corp.accelance.fr> Message-ID: <20130115092231.35fa854a@skate> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Dear Jeremy Rosen, On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 09:18:14 +0100 (CET), Jeremy Rosen wrote: > > So, for each package, the source code is extracted in > > output/sources/-/, and the build takes places in > > output/build/-/ for target packages, and > > output/build/host--/ for host packages. > > > > just a small detail but... > > could you consider building in output/build/target instead of directly int > output/build/ for the target ? Hum, why? Building in output/build/-/ is already what we do today. > 1) the host/ part won't be hidden in the middle of all sorts of directories that are package specific Hum? I didn't suggest a host/ part. My proposal, in terms of build directories, do not change anything compared to what we have today: output/build/host-foo-1.0/ for the host version of package foo output/build/foo-1.0/ for the target version of package foo That's what we do today. > 2) it would avoid confusion in the case we somday include a utility named "host" It would be: output/build/host-host-4.2/ output/build/host-4.2/ But that's the same thing today. I am not sure there is an upstream project called simply "host", so at this point, I don't see the need to change the naming of those directories. Thanks! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com