From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 13:11:12 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 2 of 3 v2] manual: add section about depending on target and toolchain options In-Reply-To: References: <679aaf4f4d6cb323f13d.1380099395@argentina> <524D00D9.9070800@mind.be> Message-ID: <524D50D0.8060906@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 10/03/13 09:34, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > Hi Arnout, > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 7:30 AM, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >> On 09/25/13 10:56, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: > [..] >>> Notes: >>> - How we will specify the C library is currently marked as 'to be >>> decided'. >>> This patch series does not yet unify that, but I plan to do that in a new >>> patch (or update this series if we can reach a decision shortly). The >>> problem >>> is that not all packages that have a dependency on e.g. glibc add a >>> comment to >>> show this to the user. A proposal would be to have a comment like: >>> foo needs a (e)glibc toolchain w/ featA, featB, featC >>> where the '(e)glibc' string would be left out if there is no constraint on >>> the >>> C library. >> >> >> Looks good to me. Though for glibc there is only one feature AFAIK: C++. >> >> > > I'm not sure what you mean here. I think that some packages depend on > an (e)glibc toolchain because it requires certain features that are > lacking in uclibc. I haven't checked for the details though. It may be > the presence of certain system calls. (e)glibc always has all features enabled, except for C++ (and RPC in some cases but I don't think we have those). Which is fortunate, because it means the additional (e)glibc part isn't likely to make the line too long. [snip] >>> +** Comment string: +dynamic library+ >> >> >> For the sake of brevity, maybe "DLL"? > > DLL really has a Windows annotation for me. Moreover, it's not so > commonly used in the Linux world, don't you think? True. I'm just thinking that this is a pretty long string, that in addition is likely to be combined with a lot of other things. The dynamic library support is anyway a bit of a problem, because it bears little relation to the config option "prefer static libraries". That part, however, will hopefully be fixed when the other Thomas adds the choice between static-only, dynamic-only and both. Regards, Arnout -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F