From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gustavo Zacarias Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 15:48:20 -0300 Subject: [Buildroot] iproute2 failing for x86_64 with ext. toolchain In-Reply-To: References: <20101207162124.20071ez7m458t3lw@www.home.zuerker.org> <4D00DFEE.7090103@zacarias.com.ar> <20101209105559.10305jzi16ub75cs@www.home.zuerker.org> <4D0112E5.301@zacarias.com.ar> Message-ID: <4D012474.8050902@zacarias.com.ar> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 12/09/10 15:36, Pkun wrote: > There is a good variable TARGET_CONFIGURE_OPTS within buildroot. It > contain all possible AR="$(TARGET_AR) CC="$(TARGET_CC) etc. But it's > long and complex. Probably it will be right to use it for similar cases. > > Now I'm making a big patch for iproute2. It has terrible build system > that don't support cross build. And iproute2's configure script is > hand-made and use 'gcc' instead $(CC) for example. It can't be build > without IPv6. I wrote about TARGET_CONFIGURE_OPTS but it can't be used > for the current iproute2 because it will break the internal CFLAGS > definitions. > > The xtables.h belong to iptables package. But buildroot's iptables don't > install anything to the staging. The iproute2 uses libxtables.so also. Keep in mind that doing huge patches that modify upstream source should be submitted for upstream inclusion, otherwise when there is a new version for inclusion it might break everything up again. With regards to IPv6 support i think (and it's a completely personal opinion) that it's no big deal with the iproute2 case, adding IPv6 support won't make things much bigger than say using real iproute2 versus small busybox iproute2-compatible utils. Granted, you loose some functionality, but if you want the advanced stuff you might as well throw IPv6 in. Regards.