[Buildroot] target busybox skeleton.

[Buildroot] target busybox skeleton.

[Thomas Lundquist]

Maybe it's a bit too tiny?

I'd suggest that /usr/lib is added.
(it hit me when building libpng.)


Thomas.

[Buildroot] target busybox skeleton.

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 06:32:11PM +0100, Thomas Lundquist wrote:
>Maybe it's a bit too tiny?
>
>I'd suggest that /usr/lib is added.

hmz. And what if i don't have anything in /usr/lib? Wasted dentry.

What about switching to "install -D" instead, where appropriate?
>(it hit me when building libpng.)

[Buildroot] target busybox skeleton.

[Heikki Lindholm]

Bernhard Fischer kirjoitti:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 06:32:11PM +0100, Thomas Lundquist wrote:
> 
>>Maybe it's a bit too tiny?
>>
>>I'd suggest that /usr/lib is added.
> 
> 
> hmz. And what if i don't have anything in /usr/lib? Wasted dentry.
> 
> What about switching to "install -D" instead, where appropriate?

If doing major changes, please consider taking portability issues into 
account. In this case, "-D" isn't supported on OS X.

-- Heikki Lindholm

[Buildroot] target busybox skeleton.

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 01:14:40PM +0200, Heikki Lindholm wrote:
>Bernhard Fischer kirjoitti:
>>On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 06:32:11PM +0100, Thomas Lundquist wrote:
>>
>>>Maybe it's a bit too tiny?
>>>
>>>I'd suggest that /usr/lib is added.
>>
>>
>>hmz. And what if i don't have anything in /usr/lib? Wasted dentry.
>>
>>What about switching to "install -D" instead, where appropriate?
>
>If doing major changes, please consider taking portability issues into 
>account. In this case, "-D" isn't supported on OS X.

It shouldn't be too hard to ship our own working install source an
compile and use that for the host, but thanks for the hint anyway.

MacOS-BSD already has trouble due to the use of "cp -a", IIRC and i was
gradually switching those over to cp -dpf like suggested in one
bug-report.

[Buildroot] target busybox skeleton.

[Heikki Lindholm]

Bernhard Fischer kirjoitti:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 01:14:40PM +0200, Heikki Lindholm wrote:
> 
>>Bernhard Fischer kirjoitti:
>>
>>>On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 06:32:11PM +0100, Thomas Lundquist wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Maybe it's a bit too tiny?
>>>>
>>>>I'd suggest that /usr/lib is added.
>>>
>>>
>>>hmz. And what if i don't have anything in /usr/lib? Wasted dentry.
>>>
>>>What about switching to "install -D" instead, where appropriate?
>>
>>If doing major changes, please consider taking portability issues into 
>>account. In this case, "-D" isn't supported on OS X.
> 
> 
> It shouldn't be too hard to ship our own working install source an
> compile and use that for the host, but thanks for the hint anyway.
> 
> MacOS-BSD already has trouble due to the use of "cp -a", IIRC and i was
> gradually switching those over to cp -dpf like suggested in one
> bug-report.

Getting a bit off-topic here maybe, but I have to comment that your 
effort has not been that useful, because such bug report has been wrong: 
Mac OS X doesn't support the -d option for cp and thus every cp -dfp is 
as dysfunctional as cp -a. Proper way would be cp -RPfp, which, as an 
unavoidable side-effect, is also recursive. I also filed a bug report on 
this a while ago.

-- Heikki Lindholm

[Buildroot] target busybox skeleton.

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 02:23:09PM +0200, Heikki Lindholm wrote:
>Bernhard Fischer kirjoitti:
>>On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 01:14:40PM +0200, Heikki Lindholm wrote:
>>
>>>Bernhard Fischer kirjoitti:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 06:32:11PM +0100, Thomas Lundquist wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Maybe it's a bit too tiny?
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd suggest that /usr/lib is added.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>hmz. And what if i don't have anything in /usr/lib? Wasted dentry.
>>>>
>>>>What about switching to "install -D" instead, where appropriate?
>>>
>>>If doing major changes, please consider taking portability issues into 
>>>account. In this case, "-D" isn't supported on OS X.
>>
>>
>>It shouldn't be too hard to ship our own working install source an
>>compile and use that for the host, but thanks for the hint anyway.
>>
>>MacOS-BSD already has trouble due to the use of "cp -a", IIRC and i was
>>gradually switching those over to cp -dpf like suggested in one
>>bug-report.
>
>Getting a bit off-topic here maybe, but I have to comment that your 
>effort has not been that useful, because such bug report has been wrong: 
>Mac OS X doesn't support the -d option for cp and thus every cp -dfp is 
>as dysfunctional as cp -a. Proper way would be cp -RPfp, which, as an 
>unavoidable side-effect, is also recursive. I also filed a bug report on 
>this a while ago.

great. It would have been helpful if you would have added a followup
note on that initial incorrect report (i assume that you filed a
different bug).

I'll go for the solution where we provide our own install.c and use that
as $(INSTALL) that can be overridden by the user. No idea if that will
handle $(INSTALL) some*.txt /there/ style multiply files, we'll see..

[Buildroot] target busybox skeleton.

[Thomas Lundquist]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 11:36:26AM +0100, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
> 
> What about switching to "install -D" instead, where appropriate?

Ok with me, you have the commit access, I've not :=)


Thomas.