From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 23:27:41 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [RFC] [PATCH 0/5] Buildroot cleanup In-Reply-To: <1252440948.19600.4.camel@bender> (Sven Neumann's message of "Tue\, 08 Sep 2009 22\:15\:48 +0200") References: <4AA62DD20200000D00128C56@gwia.alliedtelesyn.co.nz> <4AA75F310200007000017827@gwia.alliedtelesyn.co.nz> <4AA75F310200007000017827@gwia.alliedtelesyn.co.nz> <1252440948.19600.4.camel@bender> Message-ID: <87vdjt160i.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Sven" == Sven Neumann writes: Sven> Hi, Sven> On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 07:54 +1200, angus salkeld wrote: >> Another suggestion would be to completely separate out the toolchain >> into a new package "buildcross.git" that only builds the cross >> toolchain and then buildroot always uses the external toolchain. >> It would make buildroot's toolchain setup simpler (one toolchain mode). >> And make sharing toolchains more obvious. Sven> I like that idea. Can't really judge if it would be a success, but it Sven> seems like a nice solution that has the potential to simplify things. I have been thinking about it myself. *REALLY* supporting toolchains for all the different architectures / variants, uclibc and (e)glibc and following up on compiler bugs takes quite some effort (and noone seems willing to do it for buildroot), so maybe the best long term solution is simply to deprecate the toolchain building stuff and just recommend crosstool-ng instead? This would make BR less selfcontained / one-stop-shop though. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard