[Buildroot] [PATCH] toolchain: add support for glibc

[Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>]

Dear Arnout Vandecappelle,

On Wed, 28 Aug 2013 22:16:55 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:

>   While testing your patch again, I discovered that "make source" doesn't 
> fetch the glibc source (same for eglibc) because BR2_PACKAGE_EGLIBC is 
> not y. This would be nice to fix still in 2013.08.

Generally, 'make source' is unfortunately a bit broken with the new
internal toolchain backend based on packages. One of the reason is that
the 'make source' thing only works for one recursion level of
dependencies on host packages. I've started working on fixing that, but
it was more complex than I thought (or alternatively I was too stupid
to see that there was a simple solution).

> > But I guess I
> > can probably make BR2_TOOLCHAIN_BUILDROOT_LIBC be equal to "glibc" in
> > both the glibc and eglibc case, which would be sufficient to make the
> > toolchain building logic use the "glibc" and "glibc-configure" targets
> > for both the eglibc and glibc selections.
> 
>   You could also choose to keep eglibc.mk and make glibc the derivative. 
> Or would that be strange?

Have you seen my new patch set:

Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 00/12] Toolchain updates
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:35:19 +0200

It already incorporates a single 'glibc' package that handles both
glibc and eglibc, as per your suggestion. See PATCH 07/12 of this
series.

I renamed the package to 'glibc' because with the new activity in
glibc, it is expected that eglibc will more or less disappear in the
coming months/years. People are talking on how to merge back into glibc
the changes that were kept separate in eglibc, etc.

> > Want me to rework the patch in this direction?
> 
>   Would be nice, but as you say, merging later wouldn't be so difficult. 
> Except of course that by that time they may have diverged more.

It's already done, see above.

> > Note that later on, if we support several versions of glibc and eglibc,
> > then package/glibc/Config.in would look like:
> >
> > if BR2_TOOLCHAIN_BUILDROOT_EGLIBC
> >
> > 	... versions of eglibc ...
> >
> > endif
> >
> > if BR2_TOOLCHAIN_BUILDROOT_GLIBC
> >
> > 	... versions of glibc ...
> >
> > endif
> 
>   Nothing wrong with that, right?

No, nothing wrong at all :)

Thanks!

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