From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:37:04 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] BuildRoot cannot build powerpc64 In-Reply-To: <1b65f937-d2ee-312c-964d-e6b9da957463@mind.be> (Arnout Vandecappelle's message of "Wed, 24 Aug 2016 03:01:00 +0200") References: <57b3aeb6944cf_7ec33f915a8b1b9c298e6@ultri3.mail> <20160817193721.0cc1466d@free-electrons.com> <532ce6e0-de27-9a2a-f062-179a4fa3248e@mind.be> <20160818231850.4072ddf2@free-electrons.com> <1b65f937-d2ee-312c-964d-e6b9da957463@mind.be> Message-ID: <878tvmh5j3.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Arnout" == Arnout Vandecappelle writes: Hi, >>> Actually also some other options are more fitting in the toolchain menu IMHO, >>> like debug/optimization options and SSP. >> >> I personally don't like this, and instead would like to keep separated >> the options that affect the build of all components (SSP or not, >> debug/optimization, shared/static) from the options that configure the >> toolchain itself. > OK, fair enough. > Actually, I noticed now that SSP in the build menu already depends on the > toolchain choices. So perhaps we should move the build options below the > toolchain, and make the static/shared libs options depend on the toolchain as well. Yes, perhaps that is less confusing. It isn't perfect as the build options are more general than toolchain, but the current setup where people have to jump back/forth between the build options and toolchain menus also isn't very nice. > That leaves us just with the awkward headers-same-as-kernel forward dependency. Yeah :/ -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard